Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Sun, 12 July 2015 18:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25ECF1A87EA for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 FbQLDVmtBYqN for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C2BE1A87E7 for <jose@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obqd1 with SMTP id d1so3306709obq.1 for <jose@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=HPaW6NlyojRsqmG2uvcOrJEwoIRB/Q52aaYoJpr9lqw=; b=Zrb+k0m+NPVnBTOhw1hGfnOtUJ4YW375yEcio9SY1LL06ukPxXEy2IjDhD0+3YnY2z 4lJnAWxrA+y+5BIsXH/ePAnHiMbtI9oG6edIys1HT29K2qk50EOwAGk3lXtTLXNdWBWa va/0dgD3LpSLJGi0j8AflUjv+b49yBEf+SFVKCNfAWJwGorOU+dX+jLIP5OAyWXoo6Ji hC6z0bBWK4n7ErywzeymenfKnaQkR6zNb6v09Y5VGHXeo5q4/ukTOQEKMVTzmJ37HM05 IlI02nUzdwmEPN/qEeT/lfM4SIUUR+a9fa/7PoavWR/LMzpqzrYHC+Ei6bjmpzbwOKjQ bvpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7CFISpfHiT7FLDpnnVuD89QYuMnUq6/mi8XzIoJaRRaiQX/oj1PkgtMGRLitKUTuDQ9IS
X-Received: by 10.60.176.37 with SMTP id cf5mr27333099oec.19.1436727480445; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.86] (ip-64-134-25-65.public.wayport.net. [64.134.25.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id sm8sm8894352obb.13.2015.07.12.11.57.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44B5876E-7875-4AC5-B768-2D9662049971"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2A_yxx+WFSLJiw5ZBPfGaR5de5Lf0uaPFbaMGOnzWSnpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:57:58 -0500
Message-Id: <FE34A369-602F-4211-8D15-22B3BBA843AA@ve7jtb.com>
References: <8FF9C9E8-7259-4818-ADC2-8D70E4FBB9E9@isoc.org> <BY2PR03MB4424F0C2B5D8839444DD44CF5900@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0B8C5F38-DE8A-474B-B8DC-8B53B824C5BD@gmail.com> <CABzCy2A_yxx+WFSLJiw5ZBPfGaR5de5Lf0uaPFbaMGOnzWSnpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/QZ4c28tut01WOPpU-1KaGK_VVec>
Cc: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>, Michael Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Karen Odonoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:58:04 -0000
In some recent discussions, it seems that this might be useful for some of the POP use cases. At least the idea of a detached body. The specifics of the proposal need to be reviewed. Also as a FYI I may have a new JWA EC alg that I have been discussing with NIST that may need to have a spec to get registered. We weren’t able to get a doc together before Prague (I am trying not to do it unless it is really needed). This may or may not influence wanting to keep the WG around. John B. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry to chime in so late. I have been completely under water for sometime now. > > Like Phil, I do see that draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options sort of thing can be very useful, though I may want to have slightly different way of encoding the things. Being able to do detached signature is quite attractive. > > Best, > > Nat > > 2015-07-10 2:37 GMT+09:00 Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>>: > Hi, > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote: > >> About https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00>, I’ll add that this addresses the requests make by Jim Schaad and Richard Barnes in JOSE Issues #26 “Allow for signature payload to not be base64 encoded” and #23 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23 <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23> “Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)”. >> >> >> >> About https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01>, I’ll add that this addresses the request made by Jim Schaad in JOSE Issue #2 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/2 <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/2> “No key management for MAC”. >> >> >> >> Also, there’s a highly relevant discussion about key management for MACs going on in the COSE working group. See the thread “[Cose] Key management for MACs (was Re: Review of draft-schaad-cose-msg-01)” – especially https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/aUehU6O7Ui8CXcGxy3TquZOxWH4 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/aUehU6O7Ui8CXcGxy3TquZOxWH4> andhttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ouOIdAOe2P-W8BjGLJ7BNvvRr10 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ouOIdAOe2P-W8BjGLJ7BNvvRr10>. >> >> >> >> One could take the view that our decision on the JOSE key management draft should be informed by the related decision in COSE. Specifically, that if COSE decides to support key management for MACs, the same reasoning likely should apply to our decision on whether to define a standard mechanism for supporting key management for MACs in JOSE. >> >> >> > Key management is explicitly out-of-scope for COSE as stated in the charter. The discussion referenced had this point at the close of that discussion. > > I'm not seeing much support for these drafts moving forward in JOSE. I'm also not seeing enough to justify standards track and AD sponsored. If you think these are important to have move forward in the WG or as standards track, please say so soon. They can still go forward through the Independent submission process through the ISE. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > >> -- Mike >> >> >> >> From: jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue >> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:38 AM >> To: jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org> >> Subject: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts >> >> >> >> Folks, >> >> >> >> With the thumbprint draft progressing through the process, we have two remaining individual drafts to decide what to do with. The options include: 1) adopt as working group drafts; 2) ask for AD sponsorship of individual drafts; or 3) recommend that they not be published. Please express your thoughts on what we should do with these drafts. Jim, Kathleen, and I would like to make a decision in the Prague timeframe, so please respond by 15 July. >> >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.txt> >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Karen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list >> jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org> >> 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> > > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ <http://nat.sakimura.org/> > @_nat_en > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > jose@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Brian Campbell
- [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Anders Rundgren
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Martin Thomson
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts John Bradley
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts nov matake
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Prabath Siriwardena
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Edmund Jay
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Anders Rundgren
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Edmund Jay
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Salvatore D'Agostino
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts George Fletcher
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Prabath Siriwardena
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Prabath Siriwardena
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts hideki nara
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts HAYASHI, Tatsuya
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Matias Woloski
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Wendy Seltzer
- Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts Mike Jones
- [jose] Consensus calls for signing-input-options … Karen O'Donoghue