Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 02 April 2013 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 33E3D21F8CA5 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 RBc2V46sFSDe for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250F921F8C78 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id er7so630896obc.35 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=e2+baFoAYETOe8gsTrZuIKFIIXowjYzTZSzqLf64o4A=; b=AyBapDlnOxtDvwv0c8gHJSRpDvwIS2ocYb850Cun44XLUdctXEYQ8nQXTYey6nfcgU r4BhVLf5wM3+6BqGXZiG2FMEVwqL41vwjM3YnxMgUl5MexmS9HntQGsuZCSmt+LhRhPm QpdYol3VdbWV61dapBR24fH7fYhIRHhcpfDra9shxG0o+/1pzAi8mTXOXYmA1jY2pdKT jpmjdJ1tJS5TwIFXkmacdlwuotckfzAN8HpqYbCxJ5xdcIOmPX8Ml+ecwtsIN/dcYPFe nkirEEAgdETZKEGWR7WlDzNt81zuPt63fF4IQ5ppWjhVGpXuSput8eb7bBJUC0620J9G pkhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.14.104 with SMTP id o8mr5909729oec.127.1364926627652; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.160.201 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.1.51.16]
In-Reply-To: <515B1EB1.3090300@gmx.net>
References: <005301ce2fba$e4c68100$ae538300$@augustcellars.com> <515B1862.2020204@gmx.net> <CAL02cgSLFeh_wzaC0nb7=Xg74_3S2irg9bHxA6cvPF3vbwvTRw@mail.gmail.com> <515B1EB1.3090300@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:17:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRjxg_ihEohtq3qV-VfOTCJ4O61+Hx1tJPUewMS8dDBQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1ef16c99dd004d964be18"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhBBNIx2Sc7r/eruOZ4hcoqwg8k6u0ZLM6dkmOn217tVloQ8gkz0rFnzVrSiNSCtIMeHl+
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, jose@ietf.org, draft-barnes-jose-spi@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:17:09 -0000

You would be overloading "kid", since it would mean different things
depending on what else is present.  It's not even clear to me how a
recipient would be able to decide which meaning to use.



On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
> wrote:

> "kid" vs. "spi" - both are just identifiers that reference something.
> Only the context gives them a meaning.
>
> There is no need to define another parameter.
>
>
> On 04/02/2013 09:00 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>> "kid" identifies a key.  "spi" identifies anything/everything.
>>
>> Think of it this way:
>> "spi" --> { "alg", "enc", "zip", "kid", ... }
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
>> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.**net<hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     I don't understand why you need an additional spi parameter when
>>     there is already a kid parameter, which serves the same purpose.
>>
>>     Here is the kid parameter in the JWE:
>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/__**draft-ietf-jose-json-web-__**
>> encryption-08#section-4.1.10<http://tools.ietf.org/html/__draft-ietf-jose-json-web-__encryption-08#section-4.1.10>
>>
>>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-jose-json-web-**
>> encryption-08#section-4.1.10<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-08#section-4.1.10>
>> >
>>
>>     Here is the kid parameter in the JWS:
>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/__**draft-ietf-jose-json-web-__**
>> signature-08#section-4.1.7<http://tools.ietf.org/html/__draft-ietf-jose-json-web-__signature-08#section-4.1.7>
>>
>>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-jose-json-web-**
>> signature-08#section-4.1.7<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-08#section-4.1.7>
>> >
>>
>>     Ciao
>>     Hannes
>>
>>
>>     On 04/02/2013 06:58 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>
>>         Richard,
>>
>>         There is not yet sufficient detail in this document for me to do a
>>         proper evaluation of how things are going to work.  Example
>>         questions
>>         that I have.
>>
>>         1. What headers are required and which can  be implicit – for
>>         example
>>         can the algorithm fields be implicit in the SPI?
>>
>>         2.Are the integrity value computed across the fully populated
>>         header or
>>         the SPI header?
>>
>>         3.Is there a way to forward a message from person A which knows
>>         the SPI
>>
>>         values and person B which does not?
>>
>>         4.What is the correct algorithm for determining the JWS vs JWE
>>         in the
>>
>>         event that all of the algorithms are implicit
>>
>>         5.What happens if you have implicit parameters and explicit
>>         parameters
>>
>>         and they do not match?
>>
>>         6.Is there a recommended way to determine what the SPI
>>         parameters are
>>
>>         going to be?  Does the application need to pre-parse the message
>>         to get
>>         the SPI value or is there a recommendation that some type of
>>         callback be
>>         included
>>
>>         7.Can you make things like the IV be implicit?  Thus agree on a
>>         starting
>>
>>         value and an increment and compute the new IV for each new message
>>
>>         8.If you are requiring that the values be populated by the
>>         application –
>>
>>         does this require that you have a canonical encoding of how
>>         those values
>>         are placed into the header for the purposes of the integrity
>> check?
>>
>>         Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>         ______________________________**___________________
>>         jose mailing list
>>         jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/_**_listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/jose>
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>> >
>>
>>
>>     ______________________________**___________________
>>     jose mailing list
>>     jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/_**_listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/jose>
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>