IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] JOSE and JWT specs updated for IETF 85 working group meetings

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Wed, 07 November 2012 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.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 12D4421F84DF for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:40:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.347, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QaplPmpXdVi6 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4650221F84CF for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:40:45 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,734,1344175200"; d="scan'208";a="100248725"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.200]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2012 09:40:45 +1100
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6889"; a="46301254"
Received: from wsmsg3755.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.196]) by ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2012 09:40:44 +1100
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3755.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.196]) with mapi; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:40:44 +1100
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:40:43 +1100
Thread-Topic: [jose] JOSE and JWT specs updated for IETF 85 working group meetings
Thread-Index: Ac288Vj99Gynv15ZRVSA+YSAHjCdngAREnXw
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115001D5339@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <A64A2CE0-6FF7-471E-B103-A7F239BECB51@team.telstra.com> <CAKmKYaCXw9seKGs3iEfp8DZfZ5NWuST=TbE+5=mWb_tww0ckag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKmKYaCXw9seKGs3iEfp8DZfZ5NWuST=TbE+5=mWb_tww0ckag@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] JOSE and JWT specs updated for IETF 85 working group meetings
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, 07 Nov 2012 22:40:47 -0000

> Would it make sense to report a bug on clarifying the signing operation
> (i.e. PKCS1 vs. "pure" RSA signing), or is that something that should
> be discussed here first?

Avoiding developer confusion is generally a good reason for clarifications, though I doubt reporting a bug on this specific point makes sense. Trying "pure" RSA signing was never a good choice as no one does that (and shouldn't do it).

The organisation between JWS/JWE/JWA/JWK/... is not great. Fixing that might help if it puts detailed examples closer to the definition of the algorithms they use.

--
James Manger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email