Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31

Stephen Kent <> Mon, 15 September 2014 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66C71A036A; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.852
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5vJKKtsEEasL; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE9A1A0363; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:33013 helo=comsec.home) by with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1XTXhR-000GDl-Ea; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:56:17 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:56:16 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Jones <>, Kathleen Moriarty <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050408030108070408080803"
Subject: Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:56:26 -0000


> Sure. Here's an analysis of the requirements about duplicate member names.
> There could be two very different kinds of objections to the present text:
> A. People think we have the semantics for duplicate identifiers wrong.
> B. People think we should explain the current semantics for duplicate 
> identifiers more clearly.
> I sure hope that we're dealing with B and not A.  Stephen, which is 
> the nature of your critique of this text?
C- don't accept duplicate IDs, is what I was hoping for.

I noted why allowing a recipient to accept a dup name, and use just the 
last instance, will
likely lead to such behavior being perpetuated, based on PKIX experience.

Also, in a reply to Tim, I think you argued that people have already 
implemented JOSE and so
we ought not make any changes at this late stage. If that's what you 
said, I disagree emphatically.
The IETF always warns implementers that specs may change until an RFC is 
published, and thus
one implements a pre-RFC spec at risk.