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> >> > >> >> >> >
- [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Jim Schaad
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00 Richard Barnes