Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
"Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal@idmachines.com> Wed, 15 July 2015 20:44 UTC
Return-Path: <sal@idmachines.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B351B2A88 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oDRu6O3iHcxx for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob19.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob19.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.112]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BB91B2B1E for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod1.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.113]) by atl4mhob19.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6FKiVRE008107 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:44:31 -0400
Received: (qmail 20090 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jul 2015 20:44:31 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 96.232.123.19
X-Authenticated-UID: sal@idmachines.com
Received: from unknown (HELO salPC) (sal@idmachines.com@96.232.123.19) by 0 with ESMTPA; 15 Jul 2015 20:44:31 -0000
From: Salvatore D'Agostino <sal@idmachines.com>
To: 'Nat Sakimura' <sakimura@gmail.com>, 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <8FF9C9E8-7259-4818-ADC2-8D70E4FBB9E9@isoc.org> <BY2PR03MB4424F0C2B5D8839444DD44CF5900@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0B8C5F38-DE8A-474B-B8DC-8B53B824C5BD@gmail.com> <CABzCy2A_yxx+WFSLJiw5ZBPfGaR5de5Lf0uaPFbaMGOnzWSnpg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2A_yxx+WFSLJiw5ZBPfGaR5de5Lf0uaPFbaMGOnzWSnpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:44:30 -0400
Message-ID: <022c01d0bf3f$0c7e8f10$257bad30$@com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdC8yLFt4qXr82NRQ+2VmG4ZjTq6VgCdkQ2w
Content-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0225_01D0BF1D.84E48530"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/FaqPykT_GwbCoHm6vf-RJlYdqO4>
Cc: 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, jose@ietf.org, 'Karen O'Donoghue' <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Jul 2015 20:44:37 -0000
Also very late to the conversations but my feelings align with Phil and Nat. From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:32 PM To: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: Mike Jones; Karen O'Donoghue; jose@ietf.org 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] 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
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Brian Campbell
- [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Anders Rundgren
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Martin Thomson
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts John Bradley
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts nov matake
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Prabath Siriwardena
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Edmund Jay
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Anders Rundgren
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Edmund Jay
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Salvatore D'Agostino
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts George Fletcher
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Prabath Siriwardena
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Prabath Siriwardena
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts hideki nara
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts HAYASHI, Tatsuya
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Matias Woloski
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Wendy Seltzer
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- [jose] Consensus calls for signing-input-options … Karen O'Donoghue