Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts

I intend to review both the drafts and will post the results here in next
couple of works. ..

Thanks & regards,
-Prabath

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It's good too see that a few people do support these drafts.  Will each of
> you be sending reviews and comments to the list shortly on these drafts?
> If the chairs think it's reasonable to accept the drafts, they will also
> need to know there will be active support.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
> *To:* Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>; Karen O'Donoghue <
> odonoghue@isoc.org>; "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:32 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
>
> Sorry to chime in so late. I have been completely under water for sometime
> now.
>
> Like Phil, I do see that draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options sort
> of thing can be very useful, though I may want to have slightly different
> way of encoding the things. Being able to do detached signature is quite
> attractive.
>
> Best,
>
> Nat
>
> 2015-07-10 2:37 GMT+09:00 Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>  About
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00,
> I’ll add that this addresses the requests make by Jim Schaad and Richard
> Barnes in JOSE Issues #26 “Allow for signature payload to not be base64
> encoded” and #23 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23 “Make
> crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)”.
>
> About
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01,
> I’ll add that this addresses the request made by Jim Schaad in JOSE Issue
> #2 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/2 “No key management
> for MAC”.
>
> Also, there’s a highly relevant discussion about key management for MACs
> going on in the COSE working group.  See the thread “[Cose] Key
> management for MACs (was Re: Review of draft-schaad-cose-msg-01)” –
> especially
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/aUehU6O7Ui8CXcGxy3TquZOxWH4
> and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ouOIdAOe2P-W8BjGLJ7BNvvRr10
> .
>
> One could take the view that our decision on the JOSE key management draft
> should be informed by the related decision in COSE.  Specifically, that if
> COSE decides to support key management for MACs, the same reasoning likely
> should apply to our decision on whether to define a standard mechanism for
> supporting key management for MACs in JOSE.
>
>
> Key management is explicitly out-of-scope for COSE as stated in the
> charter.  The discussion referenced had this point at the close of that
> discussion.
>
> I'm not seeing much support for these drafts moving forward in JOSE.  I'm
> also not seeing enough to justify standards track and AD sponsored.  If you
> think these are important to have move forward in the WG or as standards
> track, please say so soon.  They can still go forward through the
> Independent submission process through the ISE.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>  *From:* jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org <jose-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Karen O'Donoghue
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:38 AM
> *To:* jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
>
> Folks,
>
>  With the thumbprint draft progressing through the process, we have two
> remaining individual drafts to decide what to do with. The options include:
> 1) adopt as working group drafts; 2) ask for AD sponsorship of individual
> drafts; or 3) recommend that they not be published. Please express your
> thoughts on what we should do with these drafts. Jim, Kathleen, and I would
> like to make a decision in the Prague timeframe, so please respond by 15
> July.
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.txt
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt
>
>  Thanks,
>  Karen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Prabath

Twitter : @prabath
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/prabathsiriwardena

Mobile : +1 650 625 7950

http://blog.facilelogin.com
http://blog.api-security.org