Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:07:15 -0500

Hi,

I apology for taking too long to review the document. Overall I think it is
in good shape but I do have some minor comments on the current version. I
have not been through the IANA section, I assumed it has already been
validated by IANA.  Please find my comments below.

Once fixed, I do not expect any action from my p[art on the datatracker and
expect the draft to move forward almost by itself.

Yours,
Daniel

 OSCORE Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained
                         Environments Framework
                    draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14

[...]

2.  Protocol Overview

   This section gives an overview of how to use the ACE Framework
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] to secure the communication between a
   client and a resource server using OSCORE [RFC8613].  The parameters
   needed by the client to negotiate the use of this profile with the
   authorization server, as well as the OSCORE setup process, are
   described in detail in the following sections.

   The RS maintains a collection of OSCORE Security Contexts with
   associated authorization information for all the clients that it is
   communicating with.  The authorization information is maintained as
   policy that is used as input to processing requests from those
   clients.

   This profile requires a client to retrieve an access token from the
   AS for the resource it wants to access on an RS, by sending an access
   token request to the token endpoint, as specified in section 5.6 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].  The access token request and response
   MUST be confidentiality-protected and ensure authenticity.  This
   profile RECOMMENDS the use of OSCORE between client and AS, but other
   protocols (such as TLS or DTLS) can be used as well.

<mglt>
I usually expect a recommendation to be
motivated.  In this case, the recommendation
seems to be motivated by not having two
different libraries - OSCORE and TLSvXs as
opposed to taking of some properties that
OSCORE have as opposed to DTLS. I believe the
motivation should be explicitly stated.

I believe that the RECOMMMENDation comes to
fill the section 5.8.1
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz.  I believe the
text should mention that such recommendation
is one attribute that needs to be completed
by the profile. This is mostly to avoid the
recommendation to be considered as anecdotal
or a comment.
It seems that SHOULD would make it more
normative than a RECOMMEND. But that is only
a personal though.

</mglt>

   Once the client has retrieved the access token, it generates a nonce
   N1.  The client also generates its OSCORE Recipient ID (see
   Section 3.1 of [RFC8613]), ID1,

<mglt>
I believe that ID1 is the Recipient ID. I am
wondering if the text "OSCORE Recipient ID
ID1 (see Section 3.1... )" would not be
clearer. Though this might be clarified by
the RFC editor.

I believe "its" should be clarified
especially in the overview section to expose
that the Recipient ID is being used by the
client to associate the received messages. In
other words, the RS will use this ID ( as
Sender ID) when sending responses to the
client.

The reason is more that I believe the
overview section should provide a description
that is understandable for people that may
not be fully aware of the details of OSCORE
or that have not yet read the document. In my
case - belonging to these two categories - I
found the detailed section clearer than the
overview. This is just to clarify my
intention.

I have the impression that N1 is specific to
this profile. In other words, it is not
generated for the oauth-authz  (Client-Nonce)
nor for OSCORE.  One difficulty of these
profiles is that they have to put the glue
between the protocol OSCORE and the ACE
framework oauth-auth.  It would maybe ease
the reading to specify what is in the profile
and what is being defined outside.  I have
the impression that the implicit convention
you are using in the protocol overview
section is that by default what is being
mentioned is defined by the profile and what
is being defined outside the profile is being
explicitly referenced.  It might worth
stating that rule - at least in the overview
section.

This is at least clarified in the detailed
sections.

</mglt>

for use with the keying material
   associated to the RS.  The client posts the token, N1 and its
   Recipient ID to the RS using the authz-info endpoint and mechanisms
   specified in section 5.8 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and Content-
   Format = application/ace+cbor.  When using this profile, the
   communication with the authz-info endpoint is not protected, except
   for update of access rights.

   If the access token is valid, the RS replies to this request with a
   2.01 (Created) response with Content-Format = application/ace+cbor,
   which contains a nonce N2 and its newly generated OSCORE Recipient
   ID, ID2, for use with the keying material associated to the client.

   Moreover, the server concatenates the input salt received in the
   token, N1, and N2 to obtain the Master Salt of the OSCORE Security
   Context (see section 3 of [RFC8613]).  The RS then derives the
   complete Security Context associated with the received token from the
   Master Salt, the OSCORE Recipient ID generated by the client (set as

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

   its OSCORE Sender ID), its own OSCORE Recipient ID, plus the
   parameters received in the access token from the AS, following
   section 3.2 of [RFC8613].

   In a similar way, after receiving the nonce N2, the client
   concatenates the input salt, N1 and N2 to obtain the Master Salt of
   the OSCORE Security Context.  The client then derives the complete
   Security Context from the Master Salt, the OSCORE Recipient ID
   generated by the RS (set as its OSCORE Sender ID), its own OSCORE
   Recipient ID, plus the parameters received from the AS.

   Finally, the client sends a request protected with OSCORE to the RS.
<mglt>
It is unclear it that request is the
communication between the client and the RS
or something in the ace framework or oscore.

</mglt>

   If the request is successfully verified, the server stores the
   complete Security Context state that is ready for use in protecting
   messages, and uses it in the response, and in further communications
   with the client, until token deletion, due to e.g. expiration.  This
   Security Context is discarded when a token (whether the same or a
   different one) is used to successfully derive a new Security Context
   for that client.

   The use of random nonces during the exchange prevents the reuse of an
   Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) nonces/key pair
   for two different messages.  Two-time pad might otherwise occur when

<mglt>
I am wondering if two time pad is correct as
opposed to a collision. I might be wrong but
two time pad seems to be correlated to OTP. I
see this closer to IV collision than OTP.
Unless you are very sure to be correct, I
would suggest to use collision instead.

</mglt>

   client and RS derive a new Security Context from an existing (non-
   expired) access token, as might occur when either party has just
   rebooted.  Instead, by using random nonces as part of the Master
   Salt, the request to the authz-info endpoint posting the same token
   results in a different Security Context, by OSCORE construction,
   since even though the Master Secret, Sender ID and Recipient ID are
   the same, the Master Salt is different (see Section 3.2.1 of
   [RFC8613]).  Therefore, the main requirement for the nonces is that
   they have a good amount of randomness.  If random nonces were not
   used, a node re-using a non-expired old token would be susceptible to
   on-path attackers provoking the creation of OSCORE messages using old
   AEAD keys and nonces.

<mglt>
I might be missing something, but my
understanding of the text above is that
nonces MUST NOT repeat and I do not see the
necessity for nonce to be non predictable.
Typically would we have an issue using an
incrementing nonce that is persistent to
reboot.

I think the cryptographic properties should
be clearly mentioned and maybe separated from
the implementation recommendation.

</mglt>

   After the whole message exchange has taken place, the client can
   contact the AS to request an update of its access rights, sending a
   similar request to the token endpoint that also includes an
   identifier so that the AS can find the correct OSCORE security input
   material it has previously shared with the client.  This specific
   identifier, encoded as a byte string, is assigned by the AS to be
   unique in the sets of its OSCORE security input materials, and is not
   used as input material to derive the full OSCORE Security Context.

   An overview of the profile flow for the OSCORE profile is given in
   Figure 1.  The names of messages coincide with those of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] when applicable.

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

      C                            RS                   AS
      |                            |                     |
      | ----- POST /token  ----------------------------> |
      |                            |                     |
      | <---------------------------- Access Token ----- |
      |                           + Access Information   |
      | ---- POST /authz-info ---> |                     |
      |   (access_token, N1, ID1)  |                     |
      |                            |                     |
      | <- 2.01 Created (N2, ID2)- |                     |
      |                            |                     |
    /Sec Context             /Sec Context                |
      derivation/              derivation/               |
      |                            |                     |
      | ---- OSCORE Request -----> |                     |
      |                            |                     |
      |                    /proof-of-possession          |
      |                    Sec Context storage/          |
      |                            |                     |
      | <--- OSCORE Response ----- |                     |
      |                            |                     |
   /proof-of-possession            |                     |
   Sec Context storage/            |                     |
      |                            |                     |
      | ---- OSCORE Request -----> |                     |
      |                            |                     |
      | <--- OSCORE Response ----- |                     |
      |                            |                     |
   /mutual        ...              |                     |
   authentication/

                        Figure 1: Protocol Overview

<mglt>
The figure is very clarifying, and though
this might be a very personal nit I would
have found it clearer to have the figure
before the explanatory text.

</mglt>

3.1.  C-to-AS: POST to token endpoint

[...]

       Header: POST (Code=0.02)
       Uri-Host: "as.example.com"
       Uri-Path: "token"
       Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
       Payload:
       {
         "req_aud" : "tempSensor4711",
         "scope" : "write",
         "req_cnf" : {
           "kid" : h'01'
        }

<mglt>
For my comprehension, the kid seems to me an
id to the security context.  Though this is
an example, I am a bit surprised the value is
01, which look small.  So I am just willing
to check my understanding.

</mglt>

   Figure 3: Example C-to-AS POST /token request for updating rights to
                 an access token bound to a symmetric key.

3.2.  AS-to-C: Access Token

   After verifying the POST request to the token endpoint and that the
   client is authorized to obtain an access token corresponding to its
   access token request, the AS responds as defined in section 5.6.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].  If the client request was invalid, or
   not authorized, the AS returns an error response as described in
   section 5.6.3 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

   The AS can signal that the use of OSCORE is REQUIRED for a specific
   access token by including the "profile" parameter with the value
   "coap_oscore" in the access token response.  This means that the
   client MUST use OSCORE towards all resource servers for which this
   access token is valid, and follow Section 4.3 to derive the security
   context to run OSCORE.  Usually it is assumed that constrained
   devices will be pre-configured with the necessary profile, so that
   this kind of profile signaling can be omitted.

<mglt>
The AS may indicate the type of communication
between the client and the RS.  However, it
seems to me the client does not provides the
AS the capabilities (i.e.  supported
profiles), which makes for example impossible
to the AS to pick one that fits the client.
I also have the impression the AS cannot
provide multiple available profiles and let
the client pick one that is implemented.  As
a result, the coap_oscore seems to be here to
indicate a "limitation" associated to the RS
- in this case OSCORE is mandatory.

While I agree that in pre-configuration
environment may things can be pre-agreed, I
am reading the text above as making the
specification of the profile as almost
useless.  I am wondering if we could not
instead mention that an AS willing to
indicate the use of OSCORE SHOULD set the
profile parameter to "coap_oscore".  A client
receiving such value and supporting this
profile SHOULD use this profile.  The
motivation for setting the profile may be
that OSCORE is only supported or that there
is a preference to use OSCORE.

</mglt>

   Moreover, the AS MUST send the following data:

   o  a master secret

   o  an identifier of the OSCORE Input Material

   Additionally, the AS MAY send the following data, in the same
   response.

   o  a context identifier

   o  an AEAD algorithm

   o  an HMAC-based key derivation function (HKDF) algorithm

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

   o  a salt

   o  the OSCORE version number

   This data is transported in the OSCORE_Input_Material.  The
   OSCORE_Input_Material is a CBOR map object, defined in Section 3.2.1.
   This object is transported in the 'cnf' parameter of the access token
   response as defined in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-params], as
   the value of a field named 'osc', registered in Section 9.5 and
   Section 9.6.

   The AS MAY assign an identifier to the context (context identifier).
   This identifier is used as ID Context in the OSCORE context as
   described in section 3.1 of [RFC8613].  If assigned, this parameters
   MUST be communicated as the 'contextId' field in the
   OSCORE_Input_Material.  The applications needs to consider that this
   identifier is sent in the clear and may reveal information about the
   endpoints, as mentioned in section 12.8 of [RFC8613].

<mglt>
It is unclear to me why such contextId is
needed. I suspect - but I am not sure - this
could be used as a reference for the AS of a
Context established between the client and
the RS. In such case I assume the context ID
(kid) is only shared by the client and the RS
so it could not be used for example when a
token needs to be updated /renewed.
I am wondering if that is correct and I
believe motivation for such id should be
clarified.

</mglt>

   The master secret and the identifier of the OSCORE_Input_Material
   MUST be communicated as the 'ms' and 'id' field in the 'osc' field in
   the 'cnf' parameeter of the access token response.  If included, the
   AEAD algorithm is sent in the 'alg' parameter in the
   OSCORE_Input_Material; the HKDF algorithm in the 'hkdf' parameter of
   the OSCORE_Input_Material; a salt in the 'salt' parameter of the
   OSCORE_Input_Material; and the OSCORE version in the 'version'
   parameter of the OSCORE_Input_Material.

   The same parameters MUST be included in the claims associated with
   the access token.  This profile RECOMMENDS the use of CBOR web token
   (CWT) as specified in [RFC8392].  If the token is a CWT, the same
   OSCORE_Input_Material structure defined above MUST be placed in the
   'osc' field of the 'cnf' claim of this token.

   The AS MUST send different OSCORE_Input_Material (and therefore
   different access tokens) to different authorized clients, in order
   for the RS to differentiate between clients.

   Figure 4 shows an example of an AS response, with payload in CBOR
   diagnostic notation without the tag and value abbreviations.  The
   access token has been truncated for readability.

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

       Header: Created (Code=2.01)
       Content-Type: "application/ace+cbor"
       Payload:
       {
         "access_token" : h'8343a1010aa2044c53 ...
          (remainder of access token (CWT) omitted for brevity)',
         "profile" : "coap_oscore",
         "expires_in" : "3600",
         "cnf" : {
           "osc" : {
             "id" : h'01',
             "ms" : h'f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f'
           }
         }
       }

   Figure 4: Example AS-to-C Access Token response with OSCORE profile.

   Figure 5 shows an example CWT Claims Set, including the relevant
   OSCORE parameters in the 'cnf' claim, in CBOR diagnostic notation
   without tag and value abbreviations.

   {
     "aud" : "tempSensorInLivingRoom",
     "iat" : "1360189224",
     "exp" : "1360289224",
     "scope" :  "temperature_g firmware_p",
     "cnf" : {
       "osc" : {
         "ms" : h'f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f',
         "id" : h'01'
       }
     }
   }

         Figure 5: Example CWT Claims Set with OSCORE parameters.

   The same CWT Claims Set as in Figure 5, using the value abbreviations
   defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and [RFC8747] and encoded in
   CBOR is shown in Figure 6.  The bytes in hexadecimal are reported in
   the first column, while their corresponding CBOR meaning is reported
   after the '#' sign on the second column, for easiness of readability.

<mglt>
Just for my understanding. Figure 5 shows an
"access_token". I am wondering if that is
possible that some parameters may be in the
CWT but not mentioned in clear (to the
client) in the AS-to-C Access Token response.
In my mind, I see the CWT as being encrypted
so the client is not expected to interpret
it. Is that correct ?

</mglt>

[...]

3.2.1.  The OSCORE_Input_Material

   id:  This parameter identifies the OSCORE_Input_Material and is
      encoded as a byte string.  In JSON, the "id" value is a Base64
      encoded byte string.  In CBOR, the "id" type is byte string, and
      has label 8.

   version:  This parameter identifies the OSCORE Version number, which
      is an unsigned integer.  For more information about this field,

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

      see section 5.4 of [RFC8613].  In JSON, the "version" value is an
      integer.  In CBOR, the "version" type is integer, and has label 0.

   ms:  This parameter identifies the OSCORE Master Secret value, which
      is a byte string.  For more information about this field, see
      section 3.1 of [RFC8613].  In JSON, the "ms" value is a Base64
      encoded byte string.  In CBOR, the "ms" type is byte string, and
      has label 1.

   hkdf:  This parameter identifies the OSCORE HKDF Algorithm.  For more
      information about this field, see section 3.1 of [RFC8613].  The
      values used MUST be registered in the IANA "COSE Algorithms"
      registry (see [COSE.Algorithms]) and MUST be HMAC-based HKDF
      algorithms.  The value can either be the integer or the text
      string value of the HMAC-based HKDF algorithm in the "COSE
      Algorithms" registry.  In JSON, the "hkdf" value is a case-
      sensitive ASCII string or an integer.  In CBOR, the "hkdf" type is
      text string or integer, and has label 4.

   alg:  This parameter identifies the OSCORE AEAD Algorithm.  For more
      information about this field, see section 3.1 of [RFC8613] The
      values used MUST be registered in the IANA "COSE Algorithms"
      registry (see [COSE.Algorithms]) and MUST be AEAD algorithms.  The
      value can either be the integer or the text string value of the
      HMAC-based HKDF algorithm in the "COSE Algorithms" registry.  In
      JSON, the "alg" value is a case-sensitive ASCII string or an
      integer.  In CBOR, the "alg" type is text string or integer, and
      has label 5.

   salt:  This parameter identifies an input to the OSCORE Master Salt
      value, which is a byte string.  For more information about this
      field, see section 3.1 of [RFC8613].  In JSON, the "salt" value is
      a Base64 encoded byte string.  In CBOR, the "salt" type is byte
      string, and has label 6.

   contextId:  This parameter identifies the security context as a byte
      string.  This identifier is used as OSCORE ID Context.  For more
      information about this field, see section 3.1 of [RFC8613].  In
      JSON, the "contextID" value is a Base64 encoded byte string.  In
      CBOR, the "contextID" type is byte string, and has label 7.

<mglt>
I am wondering if there is any kind of
overlap between the id and contextId.  They
do represent different objects, but if Input
generate a single  Security Context, it seems
to me that both designates the same OSCORE
communication. I am thus wondering why do we
need these two ids.

</mglt>

[...]

4.  Client-RS Communication

   The following subsections describe the details of the POST request
   and response to the authz-info endpoint between client and RS.  The
   client generates a nonce N1 and an identifier ID1 unique in the sets
   of its own Recipient IDs, and posts them together with the token that
   includes the materials (e.g., OSCORE parameters) received from the AS
   to the RS.  The RS then generates a nonce N2 and an identifier ID2
   unique in the sets of its own Recipient IDs, and uses Section 3.2 of
   [RFC8613] to derive a security context based on a shared master
   secret, the two nonces and the two identifiers, established between
   client and server.  The nonces and identifiers are encoded as CBOR
   byte string if CBOR is used, and as Base64 string if JSON is used.
   This security context is used to protect all future communication
   between client and RS using OSCORE, as long as the access token is
   valid.

<mglt>
all communication sounds strange to me. I am
wondering if that is not all communicationS
instead - though not being native English.

Similarly I think that the communication is
between a specific client and a specific RS -
at least once established. Thus I am
wondering if that should not be 'between THE
client and THE RS instead.

</mglt>

   Note that the RS and client authenticates each other by generating
   the shared OSCORE Security Context using the pop-key as master
   secret.  An attacker posting a valid token to the RS will not be able
   to generate a valid OSCORE Security Context and thus not be able to
   prove possession of the pop-key.  Additionally, the mutual
   authentication is only achieved after the client has successfully
   verified a response from the RS protectd with the generated OSCORE
   Security Context.

<mglt>
I think that is RS protected.

It is unclear - at this stage of reading if
the exchange that performs the mutual
authentication is a specific exchange or the
communication between the client and the RS.

</mglt>

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

4.1.  C-to-RS: POST to authz-info endpoint

   The client MUST generate a nonce value very unlikely to have been
   previously used with the same input keying material.  This profile
   RECOMMENDS to use a 64-bit long random number as nonce's value.  The
   client MUST store the nonce N1 as long as the response from the RS is
   not received and the access token related to it is still valid (to
   the best of the client's knowledge).

<mglt>
Same comment as in the overview section
regarding the nonce randomly generated. It
seems that random generation does not require
storing any context resilient to reboot.

</mglt>

   The client generates its own Recipient ID, ID1, for the OSCORE
   Security Context that it is establishing with the RS.  By generating
   its own Recipient ID, the client makes sure that it does not collide
   with any of its Recipient IDs, nor with any other identifier ID1 if
   the client is executing this exchange with a different RS at the same
   time.

<mglt>
This paragraph is really clarifying - and to
me necessary.

</mglt>

   The client MUST use CoAP and the Authorization Information resource
   as described in section 5.8.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] to
   transport the token, N1 and ID1 to the RS.

   Note that the use of the payload and the Content-Format is different
   from what is described in section 5.8.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], which only transports the token without
   any CBOR wrapping.  In this profile, the client MUST wrap the token,
   N1 and ID1 in a CBOR map.  The client MUST use the Content-Format
   "application/ace+cbor" defined in section 8.14 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].  The client MUST include the access token
   using the 'access_token' parameter, N1 using the 'nonce1' parameter
   defined in Section 4.1.1, and ID1 using the 'ace_client_recipientid'
   parameter defined in Section 4.1.2.

<mglt>
The paragraph above is also really
clarifying.

</mglt>

[...]

4.2.  RS-to-C: 2.01 (Created)

[...]

<mglt>
It seems to me that the text is using
OSCORE_Input_Material, so I would say we
should remain coherent through the document.
I personnaly do not believe '_' are needed
and would probably favor the designation used
here.

</mglt>

   the context used to protect the message.  If that is the case, the RS
   MUST overwrite the old token and associate the new token to the
   Security Context identified by the "kid" value in the 'cnf' claim.
   The RS MUST respond with a 2.01 (Created) response protected with the
   same Security Context, with no payload.  If any verification fails,
   the RS MUST respond with a 4.01 (Unauthorized) error response.

   As specified in section 5.8.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], when
   receiving an updated access token with updated authorization
   information from the client (see Section 3.1), it is recommended that
   the RS overwrites the previous token, that is only the latest
   authorization information in the token received by the RS is valid.
   This simplifies the process needed by the RS to keep track of
   authorization information for a given client.

[...]

4.3.  OSCORE Setup

   Once receiving the 2.01 (Created) response from the RS, following the
   POST request to authz-info endpoint, the client MUST extract the bstr
   nonce N2 from the 'nonce2' parameter in the CBOR map in the payload
   of the response.  Then, the client MUST set the Master Salt of the
   Security Context created to communicate with the RS to the
   concatenation of salt, N1, and N2, in this order: Master Salt =
   salt | N1 | N2, where | denotes byte string concatenation, where salt
   is the CBOR byte string received from the AS in Section 3.2, and
   where N1 and N2 are the two nonces encoded as CBOR byte strings.  An
   example of Master Salt construction using CBOR encoding is given in
   Figure 12.

N1, N2 and input salt expressed in CBOR diagnostic notation:
      nonce1 = h'018a278f7faab55a'
      nonce2 = h'25a8991cd700ac01'
      input salt = h'f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f'

N1, N2 and input salt as CBOR encoded byte strings:
      nonce1 = 0x48018a278f7faab55a
      nonce2 = 0x4825a8991cd700ac01
      input salt = 0x50f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f

Master Salt = 0x50 f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f 48 018a278f7faab55a 48
25a8991cd700ac01

    Figure 12: Example of Master Salt construction using CBOR encoding

   If JSON is used instead of CBOR, the Master Salt of the Security
   Context is the Base64 encoding of the concatenation of the same
   parameters, each of them prefixed by their size, encoded in 1 byte.
   When using JSON, the nonces and input salt have a maximum size of 255
   bytes.  An example of Master Salt construction using Base64 encoding
   is given in Figure 13.

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

N1, N2 and input salt values:
      nonce1 = 0x018a278f7faab55a (8 bytes)
      nonce2 = 0x25a8991cd700ac01 (8 bytes)
      input salt = 0xf9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f (16 bytes)

Input to Base64 encoding: 0x10 f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f 08
018a278f7faab55a 08 25a8991cd700ac01

Master Salt = b64'EPmvg4No41PniIjhQmvZTm8IAYonj3+qtVoIJaiZHNcArAE='

   Figure 13: Example of Master Salt construction using Base64 encoding

   The client MUST set the Sender ID to the ace_server_recipientid
   received in Section 4.2, and the Recipient ID to the
   ace_client_recipientid sent in Section 4.1.

<mglt>
It seems to me that the terminology used here
might be a bit misleading. If
ace_server_recipientid is being used as the
SID, it seems that ace_server_receipientid
and ace_client_recipientid could be
designated as ace_server_id and
ace_client_id.  What matters then is that the
IDs in a message can be interpreted by the
receiving side and that the receiving side
can see its ID.  In OSCORE that ID is called
the Sender ID (SID) which in this example
should be set to ace_server_id.  It seems to
me that these Sender and Recipient are only
here to indicate a direction and that Sender
ID is a bit misleading - but that is what we
have with OSCORE.  I am wondering if my
understanding is correct or if I am missing
something.

</mglt>

The client MUST set the
   Master Secret from the parameter received from the AS in Section 3.2.
   The client MUST set the AEAD Algorithm, ID Context, HKDF, and OSCORE
   Version from the parameters received from the AS in Section 3.2, if
   present.  In case an optional parameter is omitted, the default value
   SHALL be used as described in sections 3.2 and 5.4 of [RFC8613].
   After that, the client MUST derive the complete Security Context
   following section 3.2.1 of [RFC8613].  From this point on, the client
   MUST use this Security Context to communicate with the RS when
   accessing the resources as specified by the authorization
   information.

   If any of the expected parameters is missing (e.g., any of the
   mandatory parameters from the AS or the RS), or if
   ace_client_recipientid equals ace_server_recipientid, then the client
   MUST stop the exchange, and MUST NOT derive the Security Context.
   The client MAY restart the exchange, to get the correct security
   material.

<mglt>
ace_client_id and ace_server_id may collide.
It is unclear to me what problem it causes.
Contexts are being indexed with the ID being
used as a recipient and the binding between
an RID and a context seems only be necessary
for a receiving party. When a node is sending
some data, it might needs the Sending Context
but it is not crucial to index it with an ID,
nor to have all Sending and Receiving Context
mixed together. As a result, I have the
impression that this case of equality is an
implementation issue. Of course I might be
missing something.

I suggest motivation is provided, and unless
we have some the corner case is removed and
let to implementations.
</mglt>

   The client then uses this Security Context to send requests to the RS
   using OSCORE.

   After sending the 2.01 (Created) response, the RS MUST set the Master
   Salt of the Security Context created to communicate with the client
   to the concatenation of salt, N1, and N2, in the same way described
   above.  An example of Master Salt construction using CBOR encoding is
   given in Figure 12 and using Base64 encoding is given in Figure 13.
   The RS MUST set the Sender ID from the ace_client_recipientid
   received in Section 4.1, and the Recipient ID from the
   ace_server_recipientid sent in Section 4.2.  The RS MUST set the
   Master Secret from the parameter received from the AS and forwarded
   by the client in the access token in Section 4.1 after validation of
   the token as specified in Section 4.2.  The RS MUST set the AEAD
   Algorithm, ID Context, HKDF, and OSCORE Version from the parameters

Palombini, et al.         Expires June 17, 2021                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft            OSCORE Profile of ACE            December 2020

   received from the AS and forwarded by the client in the access token
   in Section 4.1 after validation of the token as specified in
   Section 4.2, if present.  In case an optional parameter is omitted,
   the default value SHALL be used as described in sections 3.2 and 5.4
   of [RFC8613].  After that, the RS MUST derive the complete Security
   Context following section 3.2.1 of [RFC8613], and MUST associate this
   Security Context with the authorization information from the access
   token.

   The RS then uses this Security Context to verify requests and send
   responses to the client using OSCORE.  If OSCORE verification fails,
   error responses are used, as specified in section 8 of [RFC8613].
   Additionally, if OSCORE verification succeeds, the verification of
   access rights is performed as described in section Section 4.4.  The
   RS MUST NOT use the Security Context after the related token has
   expired, and MUST respond with a unprotected 4.01 (Unauthorized)
   error message to requests received that correspond to a Security
   Context with an expired token.

   Note that the ID Context can be assigned by the AS, communicated and
   set in both the RS and client after the exchange specified in this
   profile is executed.  Subsequently, client and RS can update their ID
   Context by running a mechanism such as the one defined in
   Appendix B.2 of [RFC8613] if they both support it and are configured
   to do so.
<mglt>
I am reading the text as if that works they
will be able to update the ID, but there is
no guarantee for that. I would expect some
ways to announce the support of such
mechanism.

</mglt>

In that case, the ID Context in the OSCORE Security
   Context will not match the "contextId" parameter of the corresponding
   OSCORE_Input_Material.

<mglt>

Well, I might be missing something, but I
have the impression the mechanism has been
designed to mitigate the contextID and the id
when they are equal. I suppose having these
id matching raises some issues, but it is
unclear to me what the issue is.  I am also
wondering - as mentioned earlier whether we
need to have these two ID, and if so, if that
could be possible to derive these IDs one
from another. This would prevent the defining
a mechanism.

Currently here is how I see the situation:
a) the collision might be an issue, and
b) we might have a mechanism to address this
potential issue.

Note that I might emphasize the issue too
much, that is just to clarify my thoughts.

</mglt>

Running Appendix B.2 results in the keying
   material in the Security Contexts of client and RS being updated;
   this same result can also be achieved by the client reposting the
   access token to the unprotected /authz-info endpoint at the RS, as
   described in Section 4.1, but without updating the ID Context.

[...]

6.  Discarding the Security Context

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:46 AM Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ah, of course, they are indeed out of sync, thank you for noticing! I am
> fixing it already in the github, but I am thinking of waiting for Daniel's
> go ahead before submitting one more version, see if he wanted to review one
> last time.
>
> Francesca
>
> On 14/12/2020, 16:32, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, Francesca!
>
>     It looks like the CBOR label values have gotten out of sync between
> Table 1
>     and the prose.  (The IANA Considerations just refer to Table 1, so I
> think
>     that Section 3.2.1 is the only thing that needs to be kept in sync.)
>
>     -Ben
>
>     On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 09:58:21AM +0000, Francesca Palombini wrote:
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > This update answers Marco's latest review (thanks Marco!), answering
> all comments received as WGLC.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Francesca
>     >
>     > On 14/12/2020, 09:49, "Ace on behalf of [email-masked]" <
> [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
>     >     This draft is a work item of the Authentication and
> Authorization for Constrained Environments WG of the IETF.
>     >
>     >             Title           : OSCORE Profile of the Authentication
> and Authorization for Constrained Environments Framework
>     >             Authors         : Francesca Palombini
>     >                               Ludwig Seitz
>     >                               Göran Selander
>     >                               Martin Gunnarsson
>     >           Filename        : draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt
>     >           Pages           : 33
>     >           Date            : 2020-12-14
>     >
>     >     Abstract:
>     >        This memo specifies a profile for the Authentication and
>     >        Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework.
> It
>     >        utilizes Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
>     >        (OSCORE) to provide communication security and
> proof-of-possession
>     >        for a key owned by the client and bound to an OAuth 2.0
> access token.
>     >
>     >
>     >     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile/
>     >
>     >     There are also htmlized versions available at:
>     >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14
>     >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14
>     >
>     >     A diff from the previous version is available at:
>     >
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14
>     >
>     >
>     >     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
> of submission
>     >     until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>     >
>     >     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>     >     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>     >
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Ace mailing list
>     >     [email-masked]
>     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Ace mailing list
>     > [email-masked]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:02:34 +0000

Hi Daniel!

Thank you for the review. I have answered your comments inline, and if you agree with them I believe I can implement the changes by next week and submit the final version. I am happy to see these are clarification comments.

Thanks,
Francesca

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 17:07
To: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>, Ace Wg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt

Hi,

I apology for taking too long to review the document. Overall I think it is in good shape but I do have some minor comments on the current version. I have not been through the IANA section, I assumed it has already been validated by IANA.  Please find my comments below.

Once fixed, I do not expect any action from my p[art on the datatracker and expect the draft to move forward almost by itself.

Yours,
Daniel

[...]

2.  Protocol Overview

<mglt>

FP: Yes, the first reason we recommend OSCORE between C and AS is to make use of only one library on the client. However, that is absolutely dependent on the application, and the client is typically not a constrained device, so something else could be used depending on the use case scenario. Without details on the use case, I don't think we have enough information to motivate a recommendation.

FP: The recommendation does not fill in 5.8.1, the MUST just before does. Its goal is to give one preferred choice to implementers on how the previous MUST can be fullfilled. The use of normative text makes it so that this text cannot be taken as a comment. Appendix A - Profile Requirements summarizes the requirements that this profile defines based on the framework.

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Ok, will change.

FP: That's correct. I will change: s/its/its own. I think the next half sentence "for use with the keying material associated to the RS." is supposed to say exactly what you say above. I would rather not go into details of how exactly the Recipient ID works, as that is OSCORE details.

FP: Absolutely, which is why I am trying to keep it high level at this point. If the sentence "Recipient ID for use with the keying material associated to the RS" is not clear enough, could you point me to what is missing? (keeping in mind I'd rather not go into messaging level)

FP: It is hard to draw a very strict line as some requirements spill over from the framework and OSCORE, even just to give the context of the more detailed requirements. I don't think I could correctly state that, but what I tried to do, as you noted, is a direct reference everytime (or almost) that I can easily point to.

</mglt>

FP: This is any request, so what you call "communication between the client and RS". If it was something defined elsewhere there would have been a reference to the relevant section.

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: I believe two-time pad is the correct term.
</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: the randomness requirement for the nonces comes from the combination of the possibility of reboot (or loss of state/nonces) and using the same access token (hence OSCORE input material). We do not assume that the nodes have the capability to do persistent storage of nonces, since that would be very taxing, but if that was the case, then yes I would think counters would be fine (see section 7).

FP: this is just the overview, more detailed considerations are in fact separate and can be found in section 7.

</mglt>

      C                            RS                   AS
      |                            |                     |

<mglt>

FP: I will leave this as is for now, willing to see what's best with the RFCEditor.
</mglt>

[...]

       Header: POST (Code=0.02)

<mglt>

FP: That is correct, and the value is just an example.
</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: I believe negotiation of profiles is a point that has been brought up (possibly even by me if I remember correctly) and discussed within the ace framework,  and is much more general than for the OSCORE profile. I think if we want to take on this discussion again, we should do it with the Ace framework authors because they have strong views about this. The OSCORE profile only adapts what the ace framework specifies.

</mglt>

   o  a master secret

   o  a context identifier

   o  an AEAD algorithm

   o  a salt

<mglt>

FP: Motivation of existence of ID Context is in OSCCORE, and we have a reference to the correct OSCORE section here (didn't want to repeat myself). No, the Context ID is not used as reference for the Sec Ctx by itself.

</mglt>

   {

<mglt>

FP: actually, figure 5 shows the "clamis set" of the access token. These claims are input to the encryption to create the actual CWT, so yes you are correct, and also the terminology used in the draft is correct.

</mglt>

[...]

<mglt>

FP: As mentioned above, no they do not designate the same data. In particular, the couple (sender ID, Context ID) identifies one particular OSCORE Security Context, while the id identifies not the Security Context but only some (incomplete) input material to derive the security context.

</mglt>

[...]

<mglt>

FP: Thanks, I will keep these points in mind when talking to the RFCEditor. Not a native English speaking either so can't really make a choice :)

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Thanks, will fix.

FP: Hopefully this can be clarified by clarifying the previous comment that talked about communication between RS and C.

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: That's correct. And as mentioned, I think the Sec Cons cover this.

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Good! Thanks for the feedback.

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Good to hear. I understand at this point that what might be confusing at the overview section gets clarified here for the reader. At the same time, I don't want to go into so much detail in the overview, and don't want to do too many forward references... you see my dilemma?

</mglt>

[...]

[...]

<mglt>

FP: The idea behind the different names: the difference between with and without '_' is that the name of the actual CBOR object includes the underscore, while the more general concept of the data included in that object (i.e. the data without any format specification) doesn't.

</mglt>

[...]

4.3.  OSCORE Setup

Master Salt = 0x50 f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f 48 018a278f7faab55a 48 25a8991cd700ac01

Input to Base64 encoding: 0x10 f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f 08 018a278f7faab55a 08 25a8991cd700ac01

<mglt>

FP: Yes, your understanding is correct. The reason for not going with server id and client id (which we actually had in a previous version of the document) is that the roles of client and server can change in the communication, after the ace exchange has happened, i.e. the CoAP client can also act as a server and viceversa. The reasoning for going with "recipientid" instead of "senderid" (since those are mirrored - the server's recipient id is the same as the client's sender id) is that the node actually choses its own recipient id, i.e. the other node's sender id. So in this case the client sets its own Sender ID (OSCORE terminology) from the parameter generated from the server and sent in the "ace_server_recipientid" parameter.

</mglt>

The client MUST set the
   following section 3.2.1 of [RFC8613].  >From this point on, the client

<mglt>

FP: The problem if they collide is that there would be collision of keys for client and server (Sender Key and Recipient Key). We will add a reference to the motivation in OSCORE, section 3.3 of OSCORE https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8613#section-3.3

</mglt>

FP: If the server doesn't support this mechanism, it will reply with an error, and the exchange will fail. There is no need to communicate support of this mechanism.

</mglt>

<mglt>

when they are equal.

FP: Actually no, these IDs are used independently, as mentioned in a previous answer. This mechanism is designed to easily update the keying material.

I suppose having these

FP: Hopefully this is clearer by the answers above. We do need both, they have different functions.

</mglt>

[...]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:46 AM Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=[email-masked]> wrote:
Ah, of course, they are indeed out of sync, thank you for noticing! I am fixing it already in the github, but I am thinking of waiting for Daniel's go ahead before submitting one more version, see if he wanted to review one last time.

Francesca

    Thanks, Francesca!

    It looks like the CBOR label values have gotten out of sync between Table 1
    and the prose.  (The IANA Considerations just refer to Table 1, so I think
    that Section 3.2.1 is the only thing that needs to be kept in sync.)

    -Ben

    On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 09:58:21AM +0000, Francesca Palombini wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > This update answers Marco's latest review (thanks Marco!), answering all comments received as WGLC.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Francesca
    >
    > On 14/12/2020, 09:49, "Ace on behalf of [email-masked]" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
    >     This draft is a work item of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments WG of the IETF.
    >
    >             Title           : OSCORE Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Framework
    >        Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework.  It
    >        (OSCORE) to provide communication security and proof-of-possession
    >        for a key owned by the client and bound to an OAuth 2.0 access token.
    >
    >
    >     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
   >     until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    >

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 17:33:37 -0500

Hi,

As mentioned during the interim meeting this morning, please find my
comments below.

Yours,
Daniel

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:02 AM Francesca Palombini <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Daniel!
>
>
>
> Thank you for the review. I have answered your comments inline, and if you
> agree with them I believe I can implement the changes by next week and
> submit the final version. I am happy to see these are clarification
> comments.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Francesca
>
>
>
> *From: *Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 17:07
> *To: *Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
> *Cc: *Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>, Ace Wg <[email-masked]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I apology for taking too long to review the document. Overall I think it
> is in good shape but I do have some minor comments on the current version.
> I have not been through the IANA section, I assumed it has already been
> Once fixed, I do not expect any action from my p[art on the datatracker
> and expect the draft to move forward almost by itself.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> FP: Yes, the first reason we recommend OSCORE between C and AS is to make
> use of only one library on the client. However, that is absolutely
> dependent on the application, and the client is typically not a constrained
> device, so something else could be used depending on the use case scenario.
> Without details on the use case, I don't think we have enough information
> to motivate a recommendation.
>
<mglt>
Fine, I understand this will be specified.
</mglt>

> FP: The recommendation does not fill in 5.8.1, the MUST just before does.
> Its goal is to give one preferred choice to implementers on how the
> previous MUST can be fullfilled. The use of normative text makes it so that
> this text cannot be taken as a comment. Appendix A - Profile Requirements
> summarizes the requirements that this profile defines based on the
> framework.
>
<mglt>
I understand that it will be clarified that MUST fulfills oauth-authz
section 5.8.1.  I do see SHOULD as a bit stronger than RECOMMEND - but that
may not be true. However, I would suggest to emphasize that OSCORE
should be use unless there is a good reason to not use it.
If we would like clients to use OSCORE and not implement other means, we
may need to emphasize that AS supporting this profile are expected to
support OSCORE.
</mglt>

> clearer. Though this might be clarified by
<mglt>
ok
</mglt>

> FP: That's correct. I will change: s/its/its own. I think the next half
> sentence "for use with the keying material associated to the RS." is
> supposed to say exactly what you say above. I would rather not go into
> details of how exactly the Recipient ID works, as that is OSCORE details.
>
>
>
<mglt>
It seems crucial to me that reading the overview section the reader has a
good sense of what information is being sent to who and what for. Currently
this is expressed using the OSCORE terminology which requires a relatively
deep understanding of OSCORE. It seems to me beneficial to adopt a more
common language that does not require this expertise. This is well
explained in the detailed section, but - at least when I was reading the
document - the overview section was more confusing than helping me. This is
why I suggest being a bit more explicit.
</mglt>

> FP: Absolutely, which is why I am trying to keep it high level at this
> point. If the sentence "Recipient ID for use with the keying material
> associated to the RS" is not clear enough, could you point me to what is
> missing? (keeping in mind I'd rather not go into messaging level)
>
<mglt>
"""

The client also generates its OSCORE Recipient ID (see
   Section 3.1 of [RFC8613]), ID1, for use with the keying material
   associated to the RS.  The client posts the token, N1 and its
   Recipient ID to the RS [...]

"""
When the client and the RS are communicating, it could legitimately being
inferred that the recipient of a message sent by the client is the RS. In
fact Recipient ID does not designate the recipient from a client
perspective, but the recipient from the RS - that is to say the recipient's
perspective. In this case, the sender ID of the recipient is expected to be
set with the Recipient ID.
So, I believe the term recipient can be misleading, if not being clarified.
 </mglt>

> FP: It is hard to draw a very strict line as some requirements spill over
> from the framework and OSCORE, even just to give the context of the more
> detailed requirements. I don't think I could correctly state that, but what
> I tried to do, as you noted, is a direct reference everytime (or almost)
> that I can easily point to.
>
>
>
<mglt>
If I recall correctly, mentioning that Nonce are profile specific
would probably be clarifying - and maybe sufficient.
</mglt>

> FP: This is any request, so what you call "communication between the
> client and RS". If it was something defined elsewhere there would have been
> a reference to the relevant section.
>
>
>
<mglt>
I believe this should be clarified.
</mglt>

> FP: I believe two-time pad is the correct term.
<mglt>
So far what I found is that two time pad is really related to two key
stream re-use, but I will defer to Ben to check if the use here is
appropriated.
</mglt>

> FP: the randomness requirement for the nonces comes from the combination
> of the possibility of reboot (or loss of state/nonces) and using the same
> access token (hence OSCORE input material). We do not assume that the nodes
> have the capability to do persistent storage of nonces, since that would be
> very taxing, but if that was the case, then yes I would think counters
> would be fine (see section 7).
>
>
>
<mglt>
The text of section 7 is clear to me, the text mentioned here seems wrong
to me - there is no randomness requirements. I suggest the text
"Therefore... nonce" be replaced by some text from section 7 or by a
reference to section 7.
</mglt>

> FP: I will leave this as is for now, willing to see what's best with the
<mglt>
sure
</mglt>

> FP: That is correct, and the value is just an example.
<mglt>
thanks for the response
</mglt>

> FP: I believe negotiation of profiles is a point that has been brought up
> (possibly even by me if I remember correctly) and discussed within the ace
> framework,  and is much more general than for the OSCORE profile. I think
> if we want to take on this discussion again, we should do it with the Ace
> framework authors because they have strong views about this. The OSCORE
> profile only adapts what the ace framework specifies.
>
>
>
<mglt>
ok, it seems very unidirectional, but we may leave it as it is.
</mglt>

> FP: Motivation of existence of ID Context is in OSCCORE, and we have a
> reference to the correct OSCORE section here (didn't want to repeat
> myself). No, the Context ID is not used as reference for the Sec Ctx by
> itself.
>
>
>
<mglt>
Sorry, I think I messed up with and rather had 'id' in mind. So I
understand that id identifies OSCORE_Input_Material and contextId
identifies the OSCORE ID Context. My initial question was why would we need
a id, and I suspected that the reason was to enable some reference between
the client and the AS, as the contextId may be changed between the RS and
client. Is that correct ?

If I remember correctly, id and contextId could not be of the same value,
but I currently do not remember why.Could you just briefly remember me. In
any case, the reason I am asking is that if we were able to have one id or
contextId, we would avoid the collision.  Typically, if contextId would be
sufficient to derive the id, we could avoid such collision issue. So
basically,  what I wanted to clarify - maybe for only myself - is id cannot
be derived from contextId and that there is a need to have the separate
id.

</mglt>

> FP: actually, figure 5 shows the "clamis set" of the access token. These
> claims are input to the encryption to create the actual CWT, so yes you are
> correct, and also the terminology used in the draft is correct.
>
>
>
<mglt>
thanks for the response. NOte that I was not questioning the terminology
here.
</mglt>

> FP: As mentioned above, no they do not designate the same data. In
> particular, the couple (sender ID, Context ID) identifies one particular
> OSCORE Security Context, while the id identifies not the Security Context
> but only some (incomplete) input material to derive the security context.
>
>
>
<mglt>
This concern can be grouped with the above comments/questions.
</mglt>

> FP: Thanks, I will keep these points in mind when talking to the
> RFCEditor. Not a native English speaking either so can't really make a
> choice :)
>
>
>
<mglt>
sure
</mglt.

> FP: Hopefully this can be clarified by clarifying the previous comment
> that talked about communication between RS and C.
>
> <mglt>
sure.
</mglt>

> FP: That's correct. And as mentioned, I think the Sec Cons cover this.
I believe the assumptions of the client are outside the scope of the
protocol, so it seems to me there is no need for a MUST. As
detailled previously I woudl either refer to eth security consideration
section or provide the requirement for not repeating without considering
how this could be implemented.
</mglt>

> FP: Good to hear. I understand at this point that what might be confusing
> at the overview section gets clarified here for the reader. At the same
> time, I don't want to go into so much detail in the overview, and don't
> want to do too many forward references... you see my dilemma?
>
<mglt>
I got the dilemma. I think that currently either the overview provides a
bit more details to clarify or removes details. Currently the overview
seems to me raising question more than indicating a direction. I am fine
either way, but I suspect that clarifying is more straight forward.
</mglt>

> FP: The idea behind the different names: the difference between with and
> without '_' is that the name of the actual CBOR object includes the
> underscore, while the more general concept of the data included in that
> object (i.e. the data without any format specification) doesn't.
>
<mglt>
Sure. I believe that either we use always the same one or explain the
difference. I have the impression for OSCORE we were using non CBOR object
terminology. At least we could limit to a single notation in the document.
</mglt>

> FP: Yes, your understanding is correct. The reason for not going with
> server id and client id (which we actually had in a previous version of the
> document) is that the roles of client and server can change in the
> communication, after the ace exchange has happened, i.e. the CoAP client
> can also act as a server and viceversa. The reasoning for going with
> "recipientid" instead of "senderid" (since those are mirrored - the
> server's recipient id is the same as the client's sender id) is that the
> node actually choses its own recipient id, i.e. the other node's sender id.
> So in this case the client sets its own Sender ID (OSCORE terminology) from
> the parameter generated from the server and sent in the
> "ace_server_recipientid" parameter.
>
>
>
<mglt>
As a note this seems to me to be a rather common situation - TLS /
IPsec/HIP. TLS uses client/ server IPsec uses initiator responder and that
is only valid for the handshake exchanges, so that could be seen as
reasonable. That said I am fine with whatever is clearer to everyone.
</mglt>

> FP: The problem if they collide is that there would be collision of keys
> for client and server (Sender Key and Recipient Key). We will add a
> reference to the motivation in OSCORE, section 3.3 of OSCORE
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8613#section-3.3
>
> <mglt>
ok, yes that would help.
</mglt>

> FP: If the server doesn't support this mechanism, it will reply with an
> error, and the exchange will fail. There is no need to communicate support
> of this mechanism.
>
>
>
<mglt>
This may be something related to OSCORE, but I am not so convinced it is a
good thing not to have any means to communicate the support of some
mechanism. I would be happy to understand more on whether this is not
needed, or if that could be added to OSCORE.
</mglt>

> FP: Actually no, these IDs are used independently, as mentioned in a
> previous answer. This mechanism is designed to easily update the keying
> material.
>
> <mglt>
Just for me, I understood that if there id and contextId matches, we re-key
so the contextId. I assume that re-keying update the contextId, in which
case, contextId is likely to be different from id. In other words, if there
is a match, a re-key operation is performed.
This also means that any rekey operation that is performed could result in
a collision. If that is the case, I believe could clarify and generalise
this to any rekey operation.
</mglt>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 14:57:05 +0000

Hi Daniel,

Thank you. I have now submitted v-15 including changes to answer your review comments.
Detailed comments below. Please let me know if I missed anything.

Thanks,
Francesca

Date: Thursday, 14 January 2021 at 23:33

Hi,

As mentioned during the interim meeting this morning, please find my comments below.

Yours,
Daniel

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:02 AM Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]> wrote:
Hi Daniel!

Yours,
Daniel

FP: Done now.
</mglt>

FP: The recommendation does not fill in 5.8.1, the MUST just before does. Its goal is to give one preferred choice to implementers on how the previous MUST can be fullfilled. The use of normative text makes it so that this text cannot be taken as a comment. Appendix A - Profile Requirements summarizes the requirements that this profile defines based on the framework.
<mglt>
I understand that it will be clarified that MUST fulfills oauth-authz section 5.8.1.  I do see SHOULD as a bit stronger than RECOMMEND - but that may not be true. However, I would suggest to emphasize that OSCORE should be use unless there is a good reason to not use it.
If we would like clients to use OSCORE and not implement other means, we may need to emphasize that AS supporting this profile are expected to support OSCORE.

FP: that is not necessary. I did not add a ref to the section as it is referenced in the sentence just before.
</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Ok, will change.
<mglt>
Ok

FP: Ok done now.
</mglt>

FP: That's correct. I will change: s/its/its own. I think the next half sentence "for use with the keying material associated to the RS." is supposed to say exactly what you say above. I would rather not go into details of how exactly the Recipient ID works, as that is OSCORE details.
<mglt>
It seems crucial to me that reading the overview section the reader has a good sense of what information is being sent to who and what for. Currently this is expressed using the OSCORE terminology which requires a relatively deep understanding of OSCORE. It seems to me beneficial to adopt a more common language that does not require this expertise. This is well explained in the detailed section, but - at least when I was reading the document - the overview section was more confusing than helping me. This is why I suggest being a bit more explicit.

FP: I don't agree here, simply because I would expect someone implementing the OSCORE profile of Ace to be familiar with the OSCORE terminology. Understanding OSCORE terminology is a requirement for understanding and implementing the draft, and I have now added a sentence about that in the Terminology section.

</mglt>

When the client and the RS are communicating, it could legitimately being inferred that the recipient of a message sent by the client is the RS. In fact Recipient ID does not designate the recipient from a client perspective, but the recipient from the RS - that is to say the recipient's perspective. In this case, the sender ID of the recipient is expected to be set with the Recipient ID.

FP: I understand your point, but really I see this as a note to the OSCORE terminology, which we are not going to change here. I hope that by adding the note in the terminology about OSCORE this becomes less of an issue for this document.
</mglt>

FP: It is hard to draw a very strict line as some requirements spill over from the framework and OSCORE, even just to give the context of the more detailed requirements. I don't think I could correctly state that, but what I tried to do, as you noted, is a direct reference everytime (or almost) that I can easily point to.
<mglt>
If I recall correctly, mentioning that Nonce are profile specific would probably be clarifying - and maybe sufficient.

FP: Ok, done now.
</mglt>

</mglt>

FP: Ok, done now.
</mglt>
</mglt>

FP: I believe two-time pad is the correct term.
<mglt>
So far what I found is that two time pad is really related to two key stream re-use, but I will defer to Ben to check if the use here is appropriated.

FP: I checked with John (who was the one to bring this issue up in the first place) and he mentioned two-time pad is the correct for confidentiality, but does not consider the integrity part. Now rephrased according to his suggestion.
</mglt>
</mglt>

FP: this is just the overview, more detailed considerations are in fact separate and can be found in section 7.
<mglt>
The text of section 7 is clear to me, the text mentioned here seems wrong to me - there is no randomness requirements. I suggest the text "Therefore... nonce" be replaced by some text from section 7 or by a reference to section 7.

FP: I see. I have now rephrased to not talk about randomness in this section, and only talk about reuse.
</mglt>

</mglt>

      C                            RS                   AS
      |                            |                     |

   o  a salt

FP: Motivation of existence of ID Context is in OSCORE, and we have a reference to the correct OSCORE section here (didn't want to repeat myself). No, the Context ID is not used as reference for the Sec Ctx by itself.
<mglt>
Sorry, I think I messed up with and rather had 'id' in mind. So I understand that id identifies OSCORE_Input_Material and contextId identifies the OSCORE ID Context. My initial question was why would we need a id, and I suspected that the reason was to enable some reference between the client and the AS, as the contextId may be changed between the RS and client. Is that correct ?

FP: We need an id for the client to identify the same OSCORE input material on the AS in case of updatet of access right. Yes the contextId might change. Also id is unique for the AS, while contextId isn't necessarily - contextId (together with the Sender ID which is negotiated later on) identifies the security context once established.

If I remember correctly, id and contextId could not be of the same value, but I currently do not remember why.Could you just briefly remember me. In any case, the reason I am asking is that if we were able to have one id or contextId, we would avoid the collision.  Typically, if contextId would be sufficient to derive the id, we could avoid such collision issue. So basically,  what I wanted to clarify - maybe for only myself - is id cannot be derived from contextId and that there is a need to have the separate id.

FP: No, they don't have to be distinct values. So there is really no collision issue. As I said above, they identify different material.

</mglt>
</mglt>

thanks for the response. NOte that I was not questioning the terminology here.

</mglt>

FP: That's correct. And as mentioned, I think the Sec Cons cover this.
<mglt>
I believe the assumptions of the client are outside the scope of the protocol, so it seems to me there is no need for a MUST. As detailled previously I woudl either refer to eth security consideration section or provide the requirement for not repeating without considering how this could be implemented.
</mglt>

FP: I believe assumptions on the client, as well as implementation recommendations, are in scope of this document.

</mglt>
I got the dilemma. I think that currently either the overview provides a bit more details to clarify or removes details. Currently the overview seems to me raising question more than indicating a direction. I am fine either way, but I suspect that clarifying is more straight forward.

FP: I gave a shot at clarifying the points above.

</mglt>

</mglt>
[...]

FP: The idea behind the different names: the difference between with and without '_' is that the name of the actual CBOR object includes the underscore, while the more general concept of the data included in that object (i.e. the data without any format specification) doesn't.
<mglt>
Sure. I believe that either we use always the same one or explain the difference. I have the impression for OSCORE we were using non CBOR object terminology. At least we could limit to a single notation in the document.

FP: I have attempted to keep it consistent, and changed a couple of places where it wasn't. Most of the time in the doc we talk about OSCORE_Input_Material because we refer to the CBOR object, but in my opinion it's still useful to be able to distinguish between the theoretical and the CBOR object.
</mglt>

</mglt>

As a note this seems to me to be a rather common situation - TLS / IPsec/HIP. TLS uses client/ server IPsec uses initiator responder and that is only valid for the handshake exchanges, so that could be seen as reasonable. That said I am fine with whatever is clearer to everyone.

FP: Ok, done.
</mglt>

</mglt>

FP: If the server doesn't support this mechanism, it will reply with an error, and the exchange will fail. There is no need to communicate support of this mechanism.
<mglt>
This may be something related to OSCORE, but I am not so convinced it is a good thing not to have any means to communicate the support of some mechanism. I would be happy to understand more on whether this is not needed, or if that could be added to OSCORE.

FP: Right, that is really a comment on OSCORE, nothing we can do about it in this specification.
</mglt>
</mglt>
In that case, the ID Context in the OSCORE Security
   Context will not match the "contextId" parameter of the corresponding
   OSCORE_Input_Material.

<mglt>
Well, I might be missing something, but I
have the impression the mechanism has been
designed to mitigate the contextID and the id
when they are equal.
FP: Actually no, these IDs are used independently, as mentioned in a previous answer. This mechanism is designed to easily update the keying material.
<mglt>
Just for me, I understood that if there id and contextId matches, we re-key so the contextId. I assume that re-keying update the contextId, in which case, contextId is likely to be different from id. In other words, if there is a match, a re-key operation is performed.
This also means that any rekey operation that is performed could result in a collision. If that is the case, I believe could clarify and generalise this to any rekey operation.

FP: As previously mentioned, contextId and id are really different, they identify different things and it is not a problem if they collide. We do nott re-key to avoid the collision between the two. The re-key can make so that the contextId changes, while id will remain the same.
</mglt>

I suppose having these

</mglt>

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:11:50 -0500

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for the update, I believe that all concerns I raised have been
addressed.   Given the latest update of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize due
to a comment raised by the secdir, I am tempted to think that we may sync a
bit the wording between the two drafts. This is to me the only point we
need to resolve. Before sending this back to Ben.

I provide the remaining concern below. I has been extracted from my more
complete comments/responses to your comments.

Thanks for the update!

Yours,
Daniel

> may not be true. However, I would suggest to emphasize that OSCORE should
> be use unless there is a good reason to not use it.
>
ok, fine for the reference. Given the comment from Russ  and the current
wording draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize, I believe we should harmonize the
wording.

This is how has just been updated.

 The use of CoAP
   and DTLS for this communication is RECOMMENDED *REQUIRED* in this
profile, other *profile.  Other*
   protocols (such as HTTP and TLS, or CoAP and OSCORE [RFC8613]) MAY be
   used instead. *will
   require specification of additional profile(s).*

</mglt>

> Fine, I understand this will be specified.
ok, it seems fine. thanks.
</mglt>

> may not be true. However, I would suggest to emphasize that OSCORE should
> be use unless there is a good reason to not use it.
>
ok, fine for the reference. Given the comment from Russ  and the current
wording draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize, I believe we should harmonize the
wording.

This is how has just been updated.

 The use of CoAP
   and DTLS for this communication is RECOMMENDED *REQUIRED* in this
profile, other *profile.  Other*
   protocols (such as HTTP and TLS, or CoAP and OSCORE [RFC8613]) MAY be
   used instead. *will
   require specification of additional profile(s).*

</mglt>

> clearer. Though this might be clarified by
<mglt>
ok, thank you.
</mglt>

> FP: I don't agree here, simply because I would expect someone implementing
> the OSCORE profile of Ace to be familiar with the OSCORE terminology.
> Understanding OSCORE terminology is a requirement for understanding and
> implementing the draft, and I have now added a sentence about that in the
> Terminology section.
>
>
>
<mglt>
I think that is appropriate and probably the right choice between writing
less and writing too much. Thanks.
</mglt>

> FP: I understand your point, but really I see this as a note to the OSCORE
> terminology, which we are not going to change here. I hope that by adding
> the note in the terminology about OSCORE this becomes less of an issue for
> this document.
>
<mglt>
ok.
</mglt>

> If I recall correctly, mentioning that Nonce are profile specific would
> probably be clarifying - and maybe sufficient.
>
>
>
> FP: Ok, done now.
>
> </mglt>
>
<mglt>
I think what you propose is clear. Thanks.
</mglt>

</mglt>
> </mglt>
<mglt>
Thanks.
</mglt>

> FP: I checked with John (who was the one to bring this issue up in the
> first place) and he mentioned two-time pad is the correct for
> confidentiality, but does not consider the integrity part. Now rephrased
> according to his suggestion.
>
</mglt>
> </mglt>
<mglt>
Fine. Thanks to you for updating and thanks to John for the feed back.
</mglt>

> section, and only talk about reuse.

<mglt>
I believe that is fine thanks.
</mglt>

> FP: I will leave this as is for now, willing to see what's best with the
<mglt>
just to re-iterate, I do not see this a a real matter.
</mglt>

ok

> FP: Motivation of existence of ID Context is in OSCORE, and we have a
> FP: We need an id for the client to identify the same OSCORE input
> material on the AS in case of updatet of access right. Yes the contextId
> might change. Also id is unique for the AS, while contextId isn't
> necessarily - contextId (together with the Sender ID which is negotiated
> later on) identifies the security context once established.
>
>
>
> FP: No, they don't have to be distinct values. So there is really no
> collision issue. As I said above, they identify different material.
>
>
>
> </mglt>
>

<mglt>
I think I am starting to understand that simply means it has been updated
and that having different values is not a goal in itself. Sorry for the
multiple iterations.

"""

""
</mglt>

> </mglt

 <mglt>
yes this is clearer at least to me. Thanks.
</mglt>

> protocol, so it seems to me there is no need for a MUST. As detailled
> previously I woudl either refer to eth security consideration section or
> provide the requirement for not repeating without considering how this
> could be implemented.
>
> </mglt>
>
>
>
> FP: I believe assumptions on the client, as well as implementation
> recommendations, are in scope of this document.
>
>
>
 <mglt>
The text works fine for me. Thanks.
</mglt>

> FP: I gave a shot at clarifying the points above.
<mglt>
I like the way it is.
</mglt>

> FP: I have attempted to keep it consistent, and changed a couple of places
> where it wasn't. Most of the time in the doc we talk about
> OSCORE_Input_Material because we refer to the CBOR object, but in my
> opinion it's still useful to be able to distinguish between the theoretical
> and the CBOR object.
>
> </mglt>
>
>
>
<mglt>
The inconsistency - if any - was viable to me. With your further look at
it, I consider you made the right choice.
</mglt>

</mglt>
> </mglt
 <mglt>
 thanks.
</mglt>

> FP: Right, that is really a comment on OSCORE, nothing we can do about it
<mglt>
ok.
</mglt>

> Just for me, I understood that if there id and contextId matches, we
> re-key so the contextId. I assume that re-keying update the contextId, in
> which case, contextId is likely to be different from id. In other words, if
> there is a match, a re-key operation is performed.
>
> FP: As previously mentioned, contextId and id are really different, they
> identify different things and it is not a problem if they collide. We do
> nott re-key to avoid the collision between the two. The re-key can make so
> that the contextId changes, while id will remain the same.
>
> </mglt>
>
>
>
> I suppose having these
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:33:07 +0000

Hi Daniel, Ben,

I believe RECOMMENDing OSCORE between C and AS and allowing for alternatives (while clarifying that any protocol used must still fulfil the ACE framework requirements) is a better solution than mandating OSCORE between C and AS: we want to keep some level of flexibility, as the client and AS are not going to be constrained and could use something else instead.

I went ahead and did the following clarification: https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-oscore-profile/commit/b806de9c5ad48049994dc8dbfe9ee908d8492515 and I think the draft is much better for it. I am going to upload a new version.

At the same time I want to note that I don’t believe this change (RECOMMEND • REQUIRED) on the DTLS profile was necessary nor an improvement: I don’t think that defining one additional profile for each different security protocol used between client and AS is a good idea. Nor I think this has been discussed in the working group (I for one completely missed this update, so thank you for bringing this up Daniel). Just want to make sure Ben is aware.

Francesca

Date: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 at 15:12

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for the update, I believe that all concerns I raised have been addressed.   Given the latest update of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize due to a comment raised by the secdir, I am tempted to think that we may sync a bit the wording between the two drafts. This is to me the only point we need to resolve. Before sending this back to Ben.

I provide the remaining concern below. I has been extracted from my more complete comments/responses to your comments.

Thanks for the update!

Yours,
Daniel

FP: that is not necessary. I did not add a ref to the section as it is referenced in the sentence just before.
</mglt>
<mglt>
ok, fine for the reference. Given the comment from Russ  and the current wording draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize, I believe we should harmonize the wording.

 The use of CoAP

   and DTLS for this communication is RECOMMENDED REQUIRED in this profile, other profile.  Other

   used instead. will

   require specification of additional profile(s).

</mglt>

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:57 AM Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Daniel,

Thanks,
Francesca

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, 14 January 2021 at 23:33
To: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ace Wg <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt

Hi,

Yours,
Daniel

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:02 AM Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Daniel!
Thank you for the review. I have answered your comments inline, and if you agree with them I believe I can implement the changes by next week and submit the final version. I am happy to see these are clarification comments.
Thanks,
Francesca
From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 17:07
To: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ace Wg <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt
Hi,

Yours,
Daniel

FP: Done now.
</mglt>
<mglt>

FP: that is not necessary. I did not add a ref to the section as it is referenced in the sentence just before.
</mglt>
<mglt>
ok, fine for the reference. Given the comment from Russ  and the current wording draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize, I believe we should harmonize the wording.

 The use of CoAP

   and DTLS for this communication is RECOMMENDED REQUIRED in this profile, other profile.  Other

   used instead. will

   require specification of additional profile(s).

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Ok, will change.
<mglt>
Ok

FP: Ok done now.
</mglt>
<mglt>
ok, thank you.
</mglt>

<mglt>
I think that is appropriate and probably the right choice between writing less and writing too much. Thanks.
</mglt>
</mglt>

FP: Ok, done now.
</mglt>

</mglt>
<mglt>

FP: Ok, done now.
</mglt>
</mglt>
<mglt>
Thanks.
</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

      C                            RS                   AS
      |                            |                     |

       Uri-Host: "as.example.com<http://as.example.com>"

   o  a salt

</mglt>

<mglt>
I think I am starting to understand that simply means it has been updated and that having different values is not a goal in itself. Sorry for the multiple iterations.

"""

   OSCORE_Input_Material.
""
</mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt

 <mglt>

 <mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>
I like the way it is.
</mglt>
</mglt>
[...]

<mglt>
The inconsistency - if any - was viable to me. With your further look at it, I consider you made the right choice.
</mglt>

</mglt>

FP: Ok, done.
</mglt
 <mglt>
 thanks.
</mglt>
</mglt>

<mglt>

I suppose having these

</mglt>
Running Appendix B.2 results in the keying
   material in the Security Contexts of client and RS being updated;
   this same result can also be achieved by the client reposting the
   access token to the unprotected /authz-info endpoint at the RS, as
   described in Section 4.1, but without updating the ID Context.
[...]
6.  Discarding the Security Context
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:46 AM Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Ah, of course, they are indeed out of sync, thank you for noticing! I am fixing it already in the github, but I am thinking of waiting for Daniel's go ahead before submitting one more version, see if he wanted to review one last time.
Francesca
On 14/12/2020, 16:32, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
    Thanks, Francesca!
    It looks like the CBOR label values have gotten out of sync between Table 1
    and the prose.  (The IANA Considerations just refer to Table 1, so I think
    that Section 3.2.1 is the only thing that needs to be kept in sync.)
    -Ben
    On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 09:58:21AM +0000, Francesca Palombini wrote:
    > On 14/12/2020, 09:49, "Ace on behalf of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
    >
    >
   >     until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
    >
    >     [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
    > [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:43:55 +0000

I am fine with the proposed text and bring the discussion to the WG.

Yours,
Daniel
________________________________
From: Ace <[email-masked]> on behalf of Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:33 AM
To: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>; Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-14.txt

Hi Daniel, Ben,

I went ahead and did the following clarification: https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-oscore-profile/commit/b806de9c5ad48049994dc8dbfe9ee908d8492515<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8eb136bb-d12a0f96-8eb17620-8692dc8284cb-7ab1296a8bec3d96&q=1&e=137511cf-e65b-4e1c-8a58-222ad5ade409&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Face-wg%2Face-oscore-profile%2Fcommit%2Fb806de9c5ad48049994dc8dbfe9ee908d8492515> and I think the draft is much better for it. I am going to upload a new version.

Francesca

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for the update!

Yours,
Daniel

fill the section 5.8.1

or a comment.

a personal though.

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

 The use of CoAP

   used instead. will

</mglt>

Hi Daniel,

Thanks,

Francesca

Hi,

Yours,

Daniel

Hi Daniel!

Thanks,

Francesca

Hi,

Yours,

Daniel

                         Environments Framework

[...]

2.  Protocol Overview

   clients.

<mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Done now.

</mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

fill the section 5.8.1

or a comment.

a personal though.

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

 The use of CoAP

   used instead. will

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

the RFC editor.

FP: Ok, will change.

<mglt>

Ok

FP: Ok done now.

</mglt>

<mglt>

ok, thank you.

</mglt>

client.

<mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

intention.

<mglt>

"""

"""

<mglt>

ok.

</mglt>

</mglt>

section.

<mglt>

FP: Ok, done now.

</mglt>

sections.

</mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

<mglt>

FP: Ok, done now.

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

Thanks.

</mglt>

   for that client.

<mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

   AEAD keys and nonces.

<mglt>

reboot.

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

      C                            RS                   AS

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

      |                           + Access Information   |

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

      |                    /proof-of-possession          |

      |                    Sec Context storage/          |

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

   /proof-of-possession            |                     |

   Sec Context storage/            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

      |                            |                     |

   /mutual        ...              |                     |

   authentication/

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

sure

</mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

[...]

       Header: POST (Code=0.02)

       Uri-Path: "token"

       Payload:

       {

         "scope" : "write",

         "req_cnf" : {

           "kid" : h'01'

        }

<mglt>

<mglt>

thanks for the response

</mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

ok

   o  a master secret

   response.

   o  a context identifier

   o  an AEAD algorithm

   o  a salt

   Section 9.6.

<mglt>

clarified.

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

"""

   OSCORE_Input_Material.

""

</mglt>

</mglt>

       Payload:

       {

         "expires_in" : "3600",

         "cnf" : {

           "osc" : {

             "id" : h'01',

           }

         }

       }

   {

     "iat" : "1360189224",

     "exp" : "1360289224",

     "cnf" : {

       "osc" : {

         "id" : h'01'

       }

     }

   }

<mglt>

it. Is that correct ?

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

[...]

      has label 8.

      has label 1.

      has label 5.

      string, and has label 6.

<mglt>

need these two ids.

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

[...]

   valid.

<mglt>

<mglt>

sure

</mglt.

</mglt>

   Security Context.

<mglt>

FP: Thanks, will fix.

<mglt>

sure.

</mglt>

</mglt

 <mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

 <mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

   time.

<mglt>

me necessary.

</mglt>

<mglt>

clarifying.

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

I like the way it is.

</mglt>

</mglt>

[...]

[...]

<mglt>

here.

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

[...]

4.3.  OSCORE Setup

   Figure 12.

   is given in Figure 13.

<mglt>

something.

<mglt>

</mglt>

</mglt>

The client MUST set the

   information.

   material.

<mglt>

missing something.

let to implementations.

<mglt>

ok, yes that would help.

FP: Ok, done.

</mglt

 <mglt>

 thanks.

</mglt>

</mglt>

   using OSCORE.

   token.

   to do so.

<mglt>

mechanism.

<mglt>

</mglt>

<mglt>

ok.

</mglt>

</mglt>

   OSCORE_Input_Material.

<mglt>

when they are equal.

<mglt>

</mglt>

I suppose having these

a mechanism.

potential issue.

</mglt>

[...]

Francesca

    Thanks, Francesca!

    -Ben

Ace mailing list

--

Daniel Migault

Ericsson

--

Daniel Migault

Ericsson

--

Daniel Migault

Ericsson