Re: [Anima] [Iotops] [netconf] what to call different RFC8366 format artifacts

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 04 November 2020 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2733A096B; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 22:22:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnvU9PFTynUL; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 22:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D41E3A0966; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 22:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CQxP83FlHz67HRW; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:21:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml794-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.15) by fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 07:22:29 +0100
Received: from fraeml794-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.15) by fraeml794-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 07:22:29 +0100
Received: from DGGEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.40) by fraeml794-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 07:22:29 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.33]) by dggeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:22:26 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "iotops@ietf.org" <iotops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Iotops] [netconf] what to call different RFC8366 format artifacts
Thread-Index: AdaycqUnE+dI0q33R0aqGlmGJZ5ZdA==
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:22:25 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB21C12@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.101.103]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/0R0SKulKkIsp5z12LGFrGYsiQNY>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [Iotops] [netconf] what to call different RFC8366 format artifacts
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 06:22:34 -0000

Agree with Juergen, these artifacts are all CMS signed-data content
Type, so COSE signed CBOR, JWS signed JSON is more nature to me.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Iotops [mailto:iotops-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Juergen Schoenwaelder
发送时间: 2020年11月4日 4:24
收件人: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
抄送: netconf@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org; iotops@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Iotops] [netconf] what to call different RFC8366 format artifacts

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> So to bikeshed the whole thing, please comment on preference in naming:
> 
> 1) RFC8366:    CMS-signed-JSON  vs JSON-in-CMS.
> 2) CV:         CMS-signed-CBOR  vs CBOR-in-CMS.
> 3) CV:         COSE-signed-CBOR vs CBOR-in-COSE.
> 4) future ID:  JWS-signed-JSON  vs JSON-in-JOSE.
> 
> I note that for some of these "signed" is redundant.
> We do not have COSE-signed-JSON, or JWS-signed-CBOR.
> 
> Which feels more natural to you?
>

For me, all the $foo-signed-$bar expansions make sense and they stress the signature aspect:

CMS-signed-JSON  = Cryptographic Message Syntax signed
                   JavaScript Object Notation CMS-signed-CBOR  = Cryptographic Message Syntax signed
                   Concise Binary Object Representation COSE-signed-CBOR = CBOR Object Signing and Encryption signed
                   Concise Binary Object Representation JWS-signed-JSON  = JSON Web Signature signed
                   JavaScript Object Notation

The $foo-in-$bar alternative somehow stresses containment but I assume the primary reason for using CMS / COSE / JWS is for signatures, not for containment.

/js (German, in case that matters.)

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

--
Iotops mailing list
Iotops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops