IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Beyond RFC 8785 (JSON Canonicalization Scheme)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 10 July 2020 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 81A343A0967 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 cZvlfVNEAx9A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A45D83A0965 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B3Q4L5KMzzyWh; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:43:46 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR00MB06880AA5E91B9DC72AF93D25F5650@MN2PR00MB0688.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:43:46 +0200
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 616106626.0886461-9cfc644a064772c3ea87c8ba56af4c11
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5DA4F0DB-8579-40CD-B1A9-9AB40C09F839@tzi.org>
References: <MN2PR00MB06880AA5E91B9DC72AF93D25F5650@MN2PR00MB0688.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/OlCEao3EmcmVB5mRmTrUNoUCqbg>
Subject: Re: [jose] Beyond RFC 8785 (JSON Canonicalization Scheme)
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:43:52 -0000

On 2020-07-10, at 22:21, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> There are things I would have commented on in JCS 

Much of what discussion we had happened on the JSON mailing list.
There is a map (JSON object) key ordering mechanism in there for which I only have the word “sick”, and this was commented on the JSON mailing list [1] (in slightly more elaborate wording).  That “feature” is still in there.  No comment.

The disturbing part is that people are now running ahead and are trying to do run-arounds around the JOSE format based on the old XMLDSig thinking.  I certainly suspected that was the point of JCS, but it plaid no role in the IESG conflict review for this independent submission — I have seen very inconsistent levels of attention in IESG to considerations about how a spec will actually be used over time.

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/IePAqXNJ3On_mSRbJGn6zYt-HRs>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email