Re: [jose] Last Call: <draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05.txt> (JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint) to Proposed Standard

Agree with the simplicty. From an implementer perspective, this is very
easy to implement. Doing sha256 and order the elements (or create a jwk
with the right order) is as simple as it can gets.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com> wrote:

> I agree with John. I think the spec is fine as is, for generating a keyid
> for a simple jwk.
> Adding hash input bytes for keys that may or may not have other uses will
> add additional/unnecessary complexity.
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
> *To:* Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> *Cc:* ietf@ietf.org; jose@ietf.org
> *Sent:* Monday, June 1, 2015 9:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Last Call: <draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05.txt>
> (JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint) to Proposed Standard
>
> I understand Stephen’s issue.
>
> However this is intended to be a simple way to generate a keyid value
> based on a JWK.
>
> I think the document as is accomplishes that.
>
> If we want to generate a keyid based on the SubjectPublicKeyInfo format
> from x.509 people should be able to do that based on the existing specs.
>
> We did drop the jkt member from the spec a while ago based on feedback.
>
> Based on some of the discussion on creating a thumbprint from a SPKI there
> may be a need for better documenting
> how to do that.  A number of the proposals discussed for doing it without
> full processing only worked for some key-types.,
> however that should be a separate spec.
>
> I think this one is ready to go.
>
> Regards
> John B.
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have one comment on this that I did raise with the WG (the
> > thread starts at [1] but the subject lines diverged so it's
> > not so easy to follow). At the end of that I think I was
> > correctly judged to be in the rough within the WG. I'm
> > raising it again now as a last-call comment (and wearing
> > no hat) as the issue is really about doing the same thing
> > in multiple protocols/WGs, so this could be a case where
> > IETF consensus maybe ought win over WG consensus, depending
> > on whether folks working on other protocols care or not.
> > (And I'm not sure if they do.)
> >
> > Note that if the draft as-is turns into an RFC it will not
> > be the end of the world, so I'd only expect that a change
> > would be done if there're a load of people who agree that
> > changing is beneficial for some actual use-case they have
> > or may have in future. (In other words, I really don't
> > expect this change to happen and I do not want it to
> > happen on purely theoretical grounds, but I wanted to
> > check just in case;-)
> >
> > So my issue is:...
> >
> > We have a bunch of other protocols (DANE, CoAP and more)
> > in which we use a hash of a public key. In most of those with
> > which I'm familiar we use the SubjectPublicKeyInfo format
> > from x.509 as the input bytes to the hash function. Doing
> > so ensures that a hash generated in one protocol/application
> > could in principle be meaningful in others, even if that's
> > not a very common thing to want. Note that using that structure
> > does not imply anything about using x.509 or asn.1 really as
> > pretty much all crypto APIs (or maybe all) provide you with
> > a way to extract public keys in exactly that form regardless
> > of whether you care about x.509 or anything related to
> > that kind of PKI. (So please let's not have the "I hate
> > asn.1/x.509/whatever" argument again:-)
> >
> > This draft defines it's own peculiar input bytes to the
> > hash function and even notes that there's no really good
> > reason for that difference:-) [2]
> >
> > I think this would be better if it supported the use of
> > hash input bytes that are the same as are used elsewhere.
> >
> > But, as I said before, the world won't end if this becomes
> > an RFC and we have to do another one later on with that
> > fairly trivial difference.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg04954.html
> > [2]
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05#section-5
> >
> >
> > On 28/05/15 17:40, The IESG wrote:
> >>
> >> The IESG has received a request from the Javascript Object Signing and
> >> Encryption WG (jose) to consider the following document:
> >> - 'JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint'
> >>  <draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >>
> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-06-11. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> >> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >>
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >>
> >>  This specification defines a method for computing a hash value over a
> >>  JSON Web Key (JWK).  It defines which fields in a JWK are used in the
> >>  hash computation, the method of creating a canonical form for those
> >>  fields, and how to convert the resulting Unicode string into a byte
> >>  sequence to be hashed.  The resulting hash value can be used for
> >>  identifying or selecting the key represented by the JWK that is the
> >>  subject of the thumbprint.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The file can be obtained via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint/
> >>
> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint/ballot/
> >>
> >>
> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list
> > jose@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>