Remove hints #42
Merged
Remove hints #42
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
geonnave
requested review from
gselander,
emanjon,
malishav and
mcr
as code owners
geonnave
force-pushed
the
remove-hints
branch
from
7e6efd8
to
781fe29
Compare
|
Merging, as discussed with co-authors in a design meeting. We decided to keep the new error definition since "Access Denied" is still actionable in that U can choose to not retry enrollment with that same V again. |
Open
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This removes text related to sharing enrollment hints between U and W, as per privacy issue discussions in #27 and additional discussions during previous IETF and internal meetings.
Note that this PR builds on top of #41 so, when reviewing, please only consider the latter commits.
I am also thinking about the impacts on the Error Handling subsection: initially we wanted it to be actionable, that is why it contains the OPAQUE_INFO field, which was supposed to carry hints (e.g. a list of V's). If we remove that, the information conveyed by the error message will be limited to "Access Denied". One alternative would be to completely remove the new EDHOC Error definition, and just send "Unspecified Error" in case of failure at W (the limitation being that U has a bit less information about what went wrong).
So the question is: should we keep the "Access Denied" error, given that we are getting rid of the OPAQUE_INFO field in REJECT_INFO?