[jose] OPEN: Nonce/Timestamp parameter
Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> Wed, 24 October 2012 10:35 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 4446621F8BB4 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aey-HNVp2is7 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp166.dfw.emailsrvr.com (smtp166.dfw.emailsrvr.com [67.192.241.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB08421F8BB2 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8B4A4270871 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: odonoghue-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id 847BE27087A for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5087C481.90208@isoc.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:35:45 -0400
From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Organization: ISOC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jose@ietf.org
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436687790B@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436687790B@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436687790B@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [jose] OPEN: Nonce/Timestamp parameter
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:35:48 -0000
Folks, The results of this poll were: 7 YES - We need to define a nonce/timestamp parameter in the base specification 1 NO - We do not need to define a nonce/timestamp parameter in the base specification 14 DISCUSS - More discussion is needed Many people discussing this issue commented that the question was underspecified. Based upon these results, I do not believe that a reasonable consensus call is possible on the question as stated. This issue remains open. Please comment on the mailing list and be prepared to resolve in Atlanta. Thanks to all who participated in this poll. Karen O'Donoghue (writing as working group co-chair) -----Original Message----- From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:05 AM To: jose@ietf.org Subject: [jose] POLL: Nonce/Timestamp parameter <CHAIR> If you voted at the face-2-face please do not vote again. If you want to provide comments please change the title from POLL to DISCUSS. Do we need to define a nonce/timestamp parameter in the base specification? Room vote: 6 yes, 0 no, 1 discuss _______________________________________________ jose mailing list jose@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
- [jose] OPEN: Nonce/Timestamp parameter Karen O'Donoghue