Re: [Acme] JOSE usage (was Re: WG meeting at IETF 93)

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Not sure why you think that, can you elaborate?
>
> All that is being proposed here is to get rid of the base64 armor which is
> unnecessary in http because it is 8-bit clean by definition.

If you look at that draft, it doesn't make JOSE simpler, it makes it
wildly more complicated.  It doesn't remove the base64 armor -- it
adds an *option* to, which has major implications, like changing the
signed value.

And unfortunately, the "remove the armor because HTTP is clean" option
isn't the whole story.  If you did something like a Content-Signature
header with a detached signature, maybe.  But if the whole JWS is in
the body, you have to have some framing in order to separate header /
payload / signature, and if you want that to be JSON, you're going to
have to Base64-encode.


> The intention is that this will be part of JOSE as-is.

Given that the JOSE formats are already RFCs and therefore immutable,
and that there are already pretty mature JOSE libraries, it seems like
that ship has sailed.

--Richard


>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Dealing with JOSE nuances is not germane to this WG.
>>
>> Yes, JOSE has failings -- pretty much all of which were pointed out
>> during the JOSE WG process, and dismissed at the time.  They are not
>> so bad, however, as to render JOSE as-is unusable.  Certainly the cure
>> described in draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options is much worse
>> than the disease.  Either let's scrap JOSE and re-design more cleanly,
>> or let's just use it with the flaws it has.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Another point I think should be considered on the agenda is how to use
>> > JOSE
>> > in the spec.
>> >
>> > I think it would be a very good idea to adopt the approach Mike Jones
>> > and
>> > myself have been suggesting of using JOSE without base64 armoring for
>> > authenticating requests and responses at the Web Service level.
>> >
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00
>> >
>> >
>> > I really hope that ACME is not going to be the last JSON based security
>> > spec
>> > IETF does and I would really like all the specs to end up with something
>> > approaching a uniform style.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Just to bump this up on people's lists, Rich and I will put up a
>> >> preliminary agenda next Monday.  If you want time for something other
>> >> than
>> >> draft-barnes-acme, please let us know.
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Ted and Rich
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Howdy,
>> >>>
>> >>> As you've seen from the IESG announcement, ACME has been approved as a
>> >>> working group, so our meeting in Prague will be as a working group
>> >>> rather
>> >>> than a BoF.  The IETF agenda is still tentative, but we're currently
>> >>> scheduled for Thursday, July 23rd, 15:20-17:20, in Karlin I/II.
>> >>> (There is
>> >>> still a chance that will change, though, so please do not tailor
>> >>> travel to
>> >>> just that time frame!)
>> >>>
>> >>> Our charter lists draft-barnes-acme as a starting point, and Rich and
>> >>> I
>> >>> are asking the authors to produce an update for the meeting.  We
>> >>> expect some
>> >>> of the working group time in Prague to be a document review/discussion
>> >>> of
>> >>> that draft.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you have other agenda items you'd like to request time for, please
>> >>> send them to the list.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ted and Rich
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Acme mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Acme mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>