Re: [jose] Deployed Code (was: Re: #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64))

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I like the idea of being able to use standard names here.  What about doing
like we do with "cty" and "typ", i.e., defining short names that expand to
some full registry value?


On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>wrote:

> The name fields in the following originate from PEM:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/dssc/dssc.xml
>
> The same code points are used in HTTP Digest
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xml
>
> SSH uses the same code points again and defines HMAC code points:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xml#ssh-parameters-18
>
>
> I don't think that when you are using base64 for encoding you can really
> make an issue of the difference between hmac-sha2-256 and hs256 as being
> serious enough to justify a whole new registry and a whole different set of
> encodings.
>
> The JWA algorithm should instead update the DSSC registry which was
> originally conceived as being a single registry and point of contact for
> all crypto algorithms and canonical identifiers for all protocols that do
> not use protocol specific code points (like IPSEC, DNSSEC).
>
>
> Setting up registries is easy. Maintaining them is not.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>>  What alternative registry of algorithm names were you thinking of?  Are
>> you suggesting that we use the OID numbers used by CMS?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> As far as I know, there is no MIME registry of cryptographic algorithm
>> names, so I don’t think there’s any conflict/duplication there.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>                                                                 -- Mike**
>> **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2013 4:56 PM
>> *To:* Mike Jones
>> *Cc:* Phil Hunt; Richard Barnes; [e-mail]; <
>> [e-mail]>; George Fletcher
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Deployed Code (was: Re: #23: Make crypto
>> independent of binary encoding (base64))****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>> So is the idea that a standards organization should seek consistency****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I understand the WG rationale. I reject it as a sufficient IETF
>> rationale. If it stands it is going to require two parallel registries for
>> the same algs.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I have a spec that crosses HTTP and JSON. Am I supposed to use mime
>> registry in one and this duplicate scheme in the other?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Blocking that type of move is what IETF last call is for. There is a
>> negligible benefit in the spec and a huge cost to the community.****
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my differenc engine****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:****
>>
>>  Short names were chosen because of the core compactness requirement for
>> the Compact Serialization.  That was an engineering decision that was
>> consciously made and for which the rationale is clear.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> You can disagree with that decision but it has known clear benefits and
>> is far from arbitrary.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>                                                                 -- Mike**
>> **
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2013 2:49 PM
>> *To:* Phil Hunt
>> *Cc:* Richard Barnes; Mike Jones; [e-mail]; <
>> [e-mail]>; George Fletcher
>> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Deployed Code (was: Re: #23: Make crypto
>> independent of binary encoding (base64))****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I think in this case that it is late to bring up binary encoding in Jose*
>> ***
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> But that does not mean we can't add it later. Specs have revisions. All
>> that is needed to support binary is a flag to say what was signed. Defaults
>> to the current scheme.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Now if it was a case where binary had been raised at the start of the
>> process and the person got told to shut up because of 'focus' well that
>> would be different. When people pull that trick I have no qualms about
>> repeating my concerns in IETF last call. I think that all too often there
>> is too much haste when starting a WG and people get railroaded into a
>> broken scheme some faction likes. But that did not happen here so I think
>> it is going to be for the binary camp to work out the solution. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> My bigger Jose concern is the bizarre decision to rename all the crypto
>> alg names. I have a spec that uses mime and JSON. If I take Jose seriously
>> I need a second crypto alg registry. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> That is junk, that is something that was raised at the start of the
>> process. So yes, I will make it an issue in IETF last call
>>
>> Sent from my difference engine****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>>
>>  Seems like many these days are in a rush. They call for consensus
>> before discussing the issue. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Isn't it up to the chair?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> This isn't unique to this WG. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Too many times the explanation for keeping an apparent 'feature/flaw' is
>> 'because we don't want change'. Yet often the group can't explain it. Or
>> worse, the group just says "we know the emperor has no clothes, we just
>> don't feel the need to comment." This is where alarm bells go off for me.
>>
>> Phil****
>>
>>
>> On 2013-06-13, at 7:35, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>>
>>  This would have been a nice discussion to have had 18 months ago, when
>> we were getting started.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I don't think it's compatible with the IETF ethos to say "Changes to this
>> document MUST NOT break existing code."  Otherwise, we're not doing
>> engineering here, we're cleaning up documentation and rubber-stamping.***
>> *
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> What would be acceptable is to say "Changes must break cleanly with
>> existing code".  That is, it should be possible for a JWT implementation
>> to, say, process both "legacy" JWS syntax and whatever comes out of this
>> group.  That way, we could come to consensus on the best solution,
>> incorporating lessons learned from earlier work without being hindered by
>> them.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Would participants here consider it a acceptable for the output of this
>> working group to be incompatible with existing JWT implementations, as long
>> as it had the property that JW* objects in the new format could be clearly
>> distinguished from "legacy" JW* objects, so that implementations could
>> adapt their processing?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> --Richard****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM, George Fletcher <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Breaking deployed code as raised by Brian, Naveen and others is a
>> critical consideration.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> George****
>>
>> On 6/13/13 10:19 AM, Mike Jones wrote:****
>>
>>  Jim and Karen, could you please do as Richard suggests and close this
>> issue as “won’t fix”.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>                                                             Thank you,***
>> *
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:57 PM
>> *To:* [e-mail]; Mike Jones
>> *Subject:* Fwd: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding
>> (base64)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> In other words: Chairs, feel free to close/wontfix :)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Richard Barnes* <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding
>> (base64)
>> To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: jose issue tracker <[e-mail]>, "<
>> [e-mail]>" <
>> [e-mail]>, "<
>> [e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>, "<
>> [e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>****
>>
>> To be clear, I structured my message in two parts for a reason, to
>> separate the analysis from the opinion.  I acknowledge that I am but one
>> voice here, and I'm increasingly hearing how alone I am :)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>>
>>  <impartial-analysis>****
>>
>> So just to be clear on the trade-off the WG has to make:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On the one hand: Breaking every existing JWT implementation in the world*
>> ***
>>
>> On the other hand: Eternally binding ourselves to base64 encoding, even
>> if binary-safe encodings become available (CBOR, MsgPack, etc.)****
>>
>> </impartial-analysis >****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> <personal-opinion>****
>>
>> I have some sympathy with JWT implementors.  It sucks to have to refactor
>> code.  But I think we're literally talking about something like a 5-line
>> patch.  And early JWT implementors knew or should have known (to use a DC
>> phrase) that they were dealing with a draft spec.  As the W3C editor's
>> draft template says, in big bold red print, "Implementors who are not
>> taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification
>> changing out from under them in incompatible ways."****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> As PHB pointed out in the other thread, it would be nice to use JWS and
>> JWE in place of CMS one day, without the base64 hit.  We should incur the
>> implementation pain now, and get the design right for the long run.  Base64
>> is a hack around JSON; we should build the system so that when we no longer
>> need that hack, it can go away.****
>>
>> </personal-opinion>****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> --Richard****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:****
>>
>> I did at first find it curious why the cryptographic operations were over
>> the base64url-enccoded values, but I was also very focused on JWE, where I
>> think the field separation problem is less of an issue (at least now).  For
>> JWS, this would certainly cause problems without some manner of unambiguous
>> field parameterization.
>>
>> I will note that unescaped NULL is not valid in JSON, so it could be used
>> as a separator between the encoded header and the payload.  I do find it
>> interesting if JOSE could more easily and efficiently support other
>> encodings.  However, I think that while this is an interesting thought
>> experiment, it seems we're too far down the path to seriously consider it
>> unless the current state were shown to be horribly broken.
>>
>>
>> - m&m
>>
>> Matt Miller < [e-mail] >
>> Cisco Systems, Inc.****
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:01 PM, jose issue tracker <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> > #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)
>> >
>> >
>> > Comment (by [e-mail]):
>> >
>> > For both serializations, you already need the base64url encoded versions
>> > of the JWS Header and the JWS Payload to preserve them in transmission,
>> so
>> > computing them isn't an extra burden.  In the JWS Compact Serialization,
>> > you already need the concatenation of the Encoded JWS Header, a period
>> > character, and the Encoded JWS Payload, so computing that concatenation
>> > isn't an extra burden.  Given you already have that quantity, computing
>> > the signature over it is the easiest thing for developers to do, and
>> it's
>> > been shown to work well in practice.  There's no compelling reason to
>> make
>> > this change.
>> >
>> > Even for the JSON Serialization, the only "extra" step that's required
>> to
>> > compute the signature is the concatenation with the period character -
>> to
>> > prevent shifting of data from one field to the other, as described by
>> Jim
>> > Schaad in the e-mail thread.  So this step isn't actually "extra" at
>> all -
>> > it's necessary.  It's also highly advantageous to use exactly the same
>> > computation for both serializations, which is currently the case.
>> >
>> > Since there is no compelling reason to make this change, and since
>> making
>> > it could enable the "shifting" problem identified by Jim, it should not
>> be
>> > made.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>> > Reporter:  [e-mail]   |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
>> >     Type:  defect       |  [e-mail]
>> > Priority:  major        |      Status:  new
>> > Component:  json-web-    |   Milestone:
>> >  encryption             |     Version:
>> > Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
>> > Keywords:               |
>> >
>> -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Ticket URL: <
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23#comment:2>
>> > jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
>> >****
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > jose mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>    ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________****
>>
>> jose mailing list****
>>
>> [e-mail]****
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>>
>>   ****
>>
>> --
>> <XeC> <http://connect.me/gffletch>****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>