Re: [Jose-reg-review] Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport

Jim Schaad <> Tue, 18 October 2016 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF99C129851 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HMEX8pX_c9Et for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CAF6129842 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hebrews ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:20:49 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'Robert Sparks' <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:04:30 -0700
Message-ID: <055201d2297a$d856c5c0$89045140$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0553_01D22940.2BF92640"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQI61KekfCopLPVnn2FhBJuAsIStnp/dS/GQ
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, 'Russ Housley' <>, 'Alissa Cooper' <>, 'Jon Peterson' <>
Subject: Re: [Jose-reg-review] Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The JSON Web Algorithm standard \(RFC 7518\) establishes this email list for designated experts to discuss proposed changes, additions, and removals to the set of algorithms in the JSON Object Signing and Encryption \(JOSE\) registry," <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:04:43 -0000

The changes with -09 deal with all of the issues I had on this.  Registration approval should be forthcoming.  I need to figure out the exact procedures for letting IANA know.





From: Jose-reg-review [] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:51 AM
Cc:; Russ Housley <>om>; Alissa Cooper <>in>; Jon Peterson <>
Subject: [Jose-reg-review] Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport


Please review the registration request in section 11.3 ( key elements copied below for convenience) at

 <> <>

Robert Sparks - STIR WG co-chair


11.3.  JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameter Registry
11.3.1.  Registry Contents Additions Requested
   Header Parameter Name: "ppt"
   o  Header Parameter Description: PASSporT extension identifier
   o  Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWS
   o  Change Controller: IESG
   o  Specification Document(s): Section 8.1 of [RFCThis]
8.1.  "ppt" (PASSporT) header parameter
   Any using protocol can extend the payload of PASSporT with additional
   JWT claims.  JWT claims are managed by an existing IANA registry as
   defined in [RFC7519] Section 10.1.  Implementations of PASSporT MUST
   support the baseline claims defined in Section 5.2, and MAY support
   extended claims.  If it is necessary for an extension to PASSporT to
   require that a relying party support a particular extended claim or
   set of claims in the PASSporT object, it can do so by specifying a
   "ppt" element for the PASSporT JOSE header.  All values of "ppt" need
   to be defined in a specification which associates the new value of
   the "ppt" element with the required claims and behaviors.  Relying
   parties MUST fail to validate PASSporT objects containing an
   unsupported "ppt".
   Using protocols MUST explicitly define the how each claim is carried
   in the using protocol and the rules for how the header and payload
   objects are constructed beyond the lexicographical and serialization
   rules defined in this document.
   Using protocols that carry the compact form of PASSporT, defined in
   Section 7, instead of the full form MUST use only mandatory
   extensions signaled with "ppt" - if a using protocol were to add
   additional optional claims to a PASSporT object it carried in compact
   form, relying parties would have no way to reconstruct the token.
   Moreover, using protocols that support the compact form of PASSporT
   MUST have some field to signal "ppt" to relying parties, as the
   compact form of PASSporT omits the JOSE header.