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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Tue, 03 November 2020 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 A564C3A1135; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 12:24:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 wtsTLUmfx8k4; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 12:24:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D413A113B; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 12:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749C4854; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:57 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id ObAntJ8Bx1Sk; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E831A20156; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:56 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id Ds3g93OWxgX9; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.218.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 569BE20154; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:55 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:23:55 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: anima@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, iotops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201103202355.c4nnbsb5eiu6ga3y@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, anima@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, iotops@ietf.org
References: <19352.1604423135@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19352.1604423135@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/oK7ULwfQgHPXrmSogvMGHoBtu90>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 20:24:23 -0000

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/>