Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Wed, 29 May 2013 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6241E21F968D for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cmjqemfEv0XI for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22c.google.com (mail-vb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEBB21F9679 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id i3so4929789vbh.31 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mZ2tOj1+BhhoJST7kASMl67dcRmfw/irARYZ0JFX2UA=; b=k+4Ge1+sh3P9TnUbEQ2vdigbA8TTJe4vp+aFx0vVhxX6kiTZ6a3NO3HTddPZ1CrMsy 89Qp8VhlZHyaLii9g2xdbaYeat5Qo1Ur9ux5vQhxi9Mfp9+OD7kP0OG540+DqObSjmBK W4daID/HvsSaQqw2SatFMgnaYQirBtU+9ymzqBFAOCmJL/QSltpaW62D3MkP9B6ppguM y/rxYLSq4iH81bnfjU1FzwGHkK6IdfURSy8YcShaMJlt8ot1YyWaFwHg85AZ5gVN/0k3 SV0c0c90y4+xu9vROATrI6/85UieOaqnLrLrVvfEMFH1JZrRT2SZ0aXXtE9hNW02MLMc bG9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.133.81 with SMTP id pa17mr3193251veb.37.1369871763842; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.160.161 with HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <02f501ce5cc5$ec9a2200$c5ce6600$@augustcellars.com>
References: <02b701ce5cb8$46ae77e0$d40b67a0$@augustcellars.com> <CAD9ie-vK3gY9b9GQrbUa=TACy5KVA1uPH_u_utucoKzVynjuiA@mail.gmail.com> <02f501ce5cc5$ec9a2200$c5ce6600$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-uV-THE0+oL-dNUB0qXF7sx8jHMZDCz8vGESmUHWV=LMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b673004df356604dde41fcf"
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 23:56:05 -0000

I use it all the time and my code would barf if it was not there.

I think it should be required rather than be a hint if it is going ot be
there.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

> I think the values just changed****
>
> ** **
>
> However the way you are using it would be an argument to say that it
> should be a required field.  Are you just using it as a hint if it exists
> and then looking at the rest of the fields if it is not present?****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:49 PM
> *To:* Jim Schaad
> *Cc:* jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field****
>
> ** **
>
> Well, I have been using, but now realize the spec changed or I was
> confused.****
>
> ** **
>
> I had been setting "typ" to be either "JWE" or "JWS" depending on the type
> of token I was creating or parsing as it was easier than looking at "alg"*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> As currently defined, I don't see value in "typ".****
>
> ** **
>
> -- Dick****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> wrote:****
>
> In reading the documents, I am trying to understand the justification for
> having the “typ” header parameter in the JOSE documents.****
>
>  ****
>
> The purpose of the field is to hold the type of the object.  In the past,
> I believe that values which should now be placed in the cty field (such as
> “JWT”) were placed in this field as well.  However the parameter is
> optional and an implementation cannot rely on its being present.  This
> means that for all practical purposes all of the code to determine the
> value of the type field from the values of the alg and enc fields.  If the
> field was mandatory then this code would disappear at a fairly small space
> cost and I can understand why the parameter would be present.****
>
>  ****
>
> Can anybody justify why this field should be present in the document – or
> should it just disappear?****
>
>  ****
>
> Jim****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> -- Dick ****
>



-- 
-- Dick