IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 18EEF21F8F4A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 3X3gP0TlrRfz for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0238.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.238]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B111E21F8AD5 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN1AFFO11FD011.protection.gbl (10.58.52.203) by BN1BFFO11HUB030.protection.gbl (10.58.53.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.664.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:12 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1AFFO11FD011.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.52.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:43 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.224]) by TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.86.9]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:18:43 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?
Thread-Index: AQHONxC00YowpNiVekuEgBwlBm4BWJjVZ6WAgAIBZvA=
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:18:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943676410FC@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org> <E4DAFDF1-0EAE-423A-ABA5-7D4A4B9462B9@adm.umu.se>
In-Reply-To: <E4DAFDF1-0EAE-423A-ABA5-7D4A4B9462B9@adm.umu.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(189002)(13464002)(199002)(5383001)(47776003)(46102001)(81342001)(47446002)(54316002)(47976001)(49866001)(76482001)(63696002)(59766001)(65816001)(33656001)(5343655001)(50986001)(53806001)(74502001)(16406001)(51856001)(20776003)(31966008)(80022001)(23726002)(79102001)(50466001)(47736001)(4396001)(81542001)(15202345002)(56816002)(69226001)(54356001)(56776001)(66066001)(46406003)(77982001)(74662001)(561944001)(55846006); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1BFFO11HUB030; H:TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0817737FD1
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" 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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:16 -0000

1.  Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations.

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hedberg
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:35 AM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?

1

12 apr 2013 kl. 01:58 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>:

Issue #8 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/8 proposes adding an "spi" (security parameters index) header parameter to the JWS and JWE specifications.  This modification to the JOSE formats would allow for signaling that pre-negotiated cryptographic parameters are being used, rather than including those parameters in the JWS or JWE header.  This proposal has been written up as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-spi-00.
 

Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?

1.  Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations.

2.  Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications as a mandatory feature.

3.  Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications as an optional feature.

4.  Another resolution (please specify in detail).

0.  I need more information to decide.

Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th or earlier. 
_______________________________________________
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email