Re: [jose] draft revision to JOSE charter

Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Tue, 15 January 2013 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
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 2A9131F0C6A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:16:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.571, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 FGW+nnNMOUdG for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE591F0C5F for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ros-dhcp192-1-51-63.bbn.com ([192.1.51.63]:56220) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1TvDrX-0009yo-Hl; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:16:03 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F06FEE.9060207@isoc.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:16:03 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8D02E89B-AF28-4D29-8710-1055BF756471@bbn.com>
References: <50F06FEE.9060207@isoc.org>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] draft revision to JOSE charter
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, 15 Jan 2013 21:16:05 -0000

On 1,2,3,5,6:

Do I understand correctly that milestones 5 and 6 are intended to be something like the JSON serialization documents, whereas 1, 2, and 3 are supposed to be something like the current documents?  If that's the case, then we might as well call a spade a spade and remove "JSON-structured" from 1, 2, and 3.

I find that sort of back-tracking pretty distasteful, though.  As I've said before, it would be better if we could come up with a reasonable JSON syntax that would profile down to something compact and URL-safe.  


On 4:

This group has agreed time and again that we will not have mandatory to implement algorithms.  As Mr. Housley put it, according to the IETF 85 minutes, "Each app defines MTI, achieving separation of MTI from syntax.".  So the phrase "including mandatory-to-implement algorithms" needs to be struck from item (4).


On 7,8:

I have no idea what milestones 7 and 8 are supposed to entail.  JWE already has wrapped keys, and JWS should (for MAC).  As above, we should strive to get this right the first time instead of doing something halfway with a promise to patch it later.


--Richard




On Jan 11, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Below is a draft update to our charter based on discussions at the last IETF meeting. The key changes are adding key representations and algorithm identifiers to the scope of work. This includes some minor language updates in the general section, the addition of deliverables 5-8, and the addition and modification of a number of milestones related to these documents.
> 
> In addition, the phrase "using a compact URL-safe representation" has been added to the descriptions of the first two deliverables and "compact JSON object" used in the milestones.
> 
> Jim and I will be submitting a revised charter shortly, and we would like your comments by 18 January if possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> Karen
> 
> 
> Description of Working Group
> 
> JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the serialization of structured data described in RFC 4627.  The JSON format is often used for serializing and transmitting structured data over a network connection.  With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services such as encryption, digital signatures, message authentication codes (MACs), and key representations for data that is being carried in JSON format.
> 
> Different proposals for providing such security services have already been defined and implemented.  This Working Group's task is to standardize four kinds of security services, integrity protection (signature and MAC), encryption, key representations, and algorithm identifiers, in order to increase interoperability of security features between protocols that use JSON.  The Working Group will base its work on well-known message security primitives (e.g., CMS), and will solicit input from the rest of the IETF Security Area to be sure that the security functionality in the JSON format is correct.
> 
> This group is chartered to work on eight documents:
> 
> (1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply JSON-structured integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a compact URL-safe representation.  "Integrity protection" includes public-key digital signatures as well as symmetric-key MACs.
> 
> (2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a compact URL-safe representation.
> 
> (3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public keys as JSON-structured objects.
> 
> (4) A Standards Track document specifying algorithms and algorithm identifiers, including mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the previous three documents.
> 
> (5) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply JSON-structured integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a JSON representation supporting multiple recipients.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (1).
> 
> (6) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a JSON representation supporting multiple recipients.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (2).
> 
> (7) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode private and symmetric keys as JSON-structured objects.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (3).
> 
> (8) A Standards Track application document specifying a means of protecting private and symmetric keys via encryption.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (2) and (7).  This document may register additional algorithms in registries defined by (4).
> 
> The working group may decide to address combinations of these goals in consolidated document(s), in which case the concrete milestones for these goals will be satisfied by the consolidated document(s).
> 
> Goals and Milestones
> 
> Jan 2012              Submit compact JSON object integrity document (1) as a WG item.
> 
> Jan 2012              Submit compact JSON object encryption document (2) as a WG item.
> 
> Jan 2012              Submit JSON key format document (3) as a WG item.
> 
> Jan 2012              Submit JSON algorithm document (4) as a WG item.
> 
> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on compact JSON object integrity document (1).
> 
> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on compact JSON object encryption document (2).
> 
> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document (3).
> 
> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document (4).
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit JSON object integrity document (1) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit JSON object encryption document (2) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit JSON key format document (3) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit JSON algorithm document (4) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit multi-recipient JSON object integrity document (5) as a WG item.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit multi-recipient JSON object encryption document (6) as a WG item.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit JSON private and symmetric key document (7) as a WG item.
> 
> Mar 2013             Submit JSON key protection application document (8) as a WG item.
> 
> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on multi-recipient JSON object integrity document (5).
> 
> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on multi-recipient JSON object encryption document (6).
> 
> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON private and symmetric key document (7).
> 
> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key protection application document (8).
> 
> Jul 2013               Submit multi-recipient JSON object integrity document (5) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Jul 2013               Submit multi-recipient JSON object encryption document (6) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Jul 2013               Submit JSON private and symmetric key document (7) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> Jul 2013               Submit JSON key protection application document (8) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose