Using "keys" in claim names for non-cryptographic keys is potentially confusing

[rohanmahy]

Hi, Mike Jones pointed out that SD-CWT is using "keys" in claim names (ex: redacted_keys) in a way which is potentially confusing. We refer to cryptographic keys (ex: confirmation key—cnf) and CBOR map keys throughout the document.

The proposal is to rename redacted_keys to something else which makes it clear that it is a "map key" and not a cryptographic key. redacted_elements or redacted_values imply that only the values (and not the claim names) are included.

I propose:

redacted_map_claims

[OR13]

This naming needs to be consistent for arrays and maps.

• redacted_map_claims
• redacted_array_claim

?

[rohanmahy]

This naming needs to be consistent for arrays and maps.

* redacted_map_claims
* redacted_array_claim

I'm not sure. The first is an array of claims that are each items in a map at the same level, and will have an integer key. The second is the map key of a single-element map which represents one item inside an array, and might be represented by the text strong "...".

This still might be the best suggestion (or least bad). Let's see.

[mprorock]

what about: redacted_claim_XXX <- XXX replaced appropriated ?

[rohanmahy]

Mike Prorock asked:

what about: redacted_claim_XXX <- XXX replaced appropriated

Mike, do you mean this? redacted_claim_map_key redacted_claim_array_item

Thanks, -rohan

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:20 AM Mike Prorock @.***> wrote:

what about: redacted_claim_XXX <- XXX replaced appropriated ?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ietf-wg-spice/draft-ietf-spice-sd-cwt/issues/15#issuecomment-2364283845, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADSQPSJI6XFH7UKJHUAP33ZXRRPJAVCNFSM6AAAAABONUWA2SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNRUGI4DGOBUGU . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>