IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #12: Should the x5c field be removed from JWE?, ,

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@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 360FC21F95CE for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 ctCsuAUFBxBx for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0205.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9F021F9577 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD014.protection.gbl (10.173.161.202) by BL2FFO11HUB015.protection.gbl (10.173.160.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:45:16 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD014.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:45:15 +0000
Received: from CO9EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (157.54.51.112) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:45:03 +0000
Received: from mail115-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.241) by CO9EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.236.130.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:45 +0000
Received: from mail115-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail115-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA468140668 for <jose@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.240.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -18
X-BigFish: PS-18(z21aIL1091v3c23mz9371I542Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1082kz97hz1033IL17326ah8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail115-co9: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 157.56.240.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.21; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:SKI; SFS:; DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:-1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB041; H:BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; LANG:en;
Received: from mail115-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail115-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1366044283468422_30830; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS028.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.251]) by mail115-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7065C600057; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.21) by CO9EHSMHS028.bigfish.com (10.236.130.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:43 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.145) by BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.97.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.299.2; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:42 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.145) by BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.670.13; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:39 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.206]) by BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.18]) with mapi id 15.00.0670.000; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:39 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #12: Should the x5c field be removed from JWE?, ,
Thread-Index: AQHONxCut0KhFoO8rUKRsOA43kjz9ZjSIMoAgAJpdQCAAuHGAIAAFuBw
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:39 +0000
Message-ID: <3d7aa65fdb52440c8d4ec87dbd2bc1d7@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <51674E58.6000505@isoc.org> <CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF402553CF16251@HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E289D7B-BB53-412A-AE3F-8CD08E45205A@adm.umu.se> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367641257@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367641257@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [77.48.62.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%ISOC.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(377454001)(5383001)(13464002)(47446002)(47776003)(33646001)(66066001)(80022001)(54316002)(76482001)(79102001)(5343655001)(59766001)(16676001)(46406003)(77982001)(50986001)(56776001)(47976001)(1511001)(23726002)(46102001)(74662001)(56816002)(44976003)(69226001)(53806001)(65816001)(54356001)(74502001)(4396001)(81542001)(20776003)(31966008)(63696002)(15202345002)(49866001)(81342001)(6806002)(51856001)(50466001)(47736001)(42413001)(42262001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB015; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX: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 #12: Should the x5c field be removed from JWE?, ,
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 16:45:18 -0000

1

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:23 AM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #12: Should the x5c field be removed from JWE?, , 

1.  Retain the "x5c" header parameter in JWE.

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hedberg
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:22 PM
To: Axel.Nennker@telekom.de
Cc: jose@ietf.org; odonoghue@isoc.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #12: Should the x5c field be removed from JWE?, , 

+1

12 apr 2013 kl. 08:32 skrev Axel.Nennker@telekom.de:

1
 
x5c is the most explicit way to describe which private key is the right one. It is an alternative to kid which is another reason why  kid must not be mandatory.
 
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:59 AM
To: jose@ietf.org
Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #12: Should the x5c field be removed from JWE?, ,
 
Issue #12 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/12 suggests removing the "x5c" header parameter from JWE, saying that no use case for it has emerged.  The same logic may apply to other key specification parameters for JWE.


Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?
1.  Retain the "x5c" header parameter in JWE.
2.  Remove the "x5c" header parameter (and possibly other related key specification parameters) from JWE.
3.  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
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email