Re: [jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Parameter

"jose issue tracker" <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 26 September 2013 00:22 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.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 3CEA521F958A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ZWKgP7tItzlR for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9776A21F91F2 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52759 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1VOzLX-00052x-9L; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:22:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: jose issue tracker <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com
X-Trac-Project: jose
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:22:19 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/jose/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/71#comment:1
Message-ID: <076.0b3f49d6193506bc570219571384ee3b@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.bd1c7f505b1fc14cae750516c3c24ce8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 71
In-Reply-To: <061.bd1c7f505b1fc14cae750516c3c24ce8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com, jose@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: mbj@microsoft.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20130926002222.9776A21F91F2@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:22:22 -0700
Resent-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Parameter
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:22:23 -0000

#71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Parameter

Description changed by ietf@augustcellars.com:

Old description:

> A. What are the requirements for defining a new use string.  Is there a
> registry for this, are they supposed to be collision resistant?
>
> B. Use of member is OPTIONAL does not convey sufficient information. For
> whom is it optional?
>
> C. What happens if use is absent is not covered in the document.
>
> D. John Bradley made a big deal at the Berlin meeting about the fact that
> this needs to be a single value rather than a multi-value field.  The
> reasoning behind this was that allowing for multiple values was an evil
> thing.  This would imply that this is not an optional field but is, at a
> minimum a SHOULD field with heavy language about when one would not
> specify a value.  all uses (absent) is worse than some usages (multi) is
> worse than one usage (single).

New description:

 A. What are the requirements for defining a new use string.  Is there a
 registry for this, are they supposed to be collision resistant?

 * FIXED: A registry now exists for this field.

 B. Use of member is OPTIONAL does not convey sufficient information. For
 whom is it optional?

 C. What happens if use is absent is not covered in the document.

 D. John Bradley made a big deal at the Berlin meeting about the fact that
 this needs to be a single value rather than a multi-value field.  The
 reasoning behind this was that allowing for multiple values was an evil
 thing.  This would imply that this is not an optional field but is, at a
 minimum a SHOULD field with heavy language about when one would not
 specify a value.  all uses (absent) is worse than some usages (multi) is
 worse than one usage (single).

--

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  ietf@augustcellars.com |  key@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  key                    |  Resolution:
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/71#comment:1>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>