IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> Thu, 11 April 2013 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <odonoghue@isoc.org>
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 18DCF21F88A1 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 GGhL3ZufBPy0 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp86.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp86.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B2C21F86B2 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 16BEA501DC for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: odonoghue-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id 7394850201 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51674E58.6000505@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:20 -0400
From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Organization: ISOC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jose@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080709050104090400050904"
Subject: [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
Reply-To: odonoghue@isoc.org
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:59:21 -0000

Issue #12 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/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 19^th or earlier.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email