Re: [jose] #158: Section 7. Security Considerations
"jose issue tracker" <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 07 November 2013 02:45 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 E26B511E8227 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:45:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, 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 2I+uLGm+3zwx for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F2311E822E for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46266 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 1VeFa5-0005Hz-B9; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:44:25 +0100
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-algorithms@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com
X-Trac-Project: jose
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 02:44:25 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/jose/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/158#comment:1
Message-ID: <076.e15b95a6f814e7208f4370eb97b91d18@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.3c673ad4841c1cc6c7ff45f10da106b1@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 158
In-Reply-To: <061.3c673ad4841c1cc6c7ff45f10da106b1@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms@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: <20131107024440.14F2311E822E@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:44:39 -0800
Resent-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] #158: Section 7. Security Considerations
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, 07 Nov 2013 02:45:50 -0000
#158: Section 7. Security Considerations Description changed by ietf@augustcellars.com: Old description: > A. DSS does not appear to have a security considerations section. It is > not clear the entire list of documents has any good reason to be > considered in this list. This appears to just be a shotgun approach > rather than a considered approach. > > B. Algorithms will be deprecated in the registry rather than removed > from this specification > > C. Where do I find the security considerations for use of the algorithms > in this document? The general statement without pointers is going to > mean it is ignored. > > D. Is the recommendation for matching the key size of the wrapped key > and the wrapping key in the body of the text or is it just here? New description: A. DSS does not appear to have a security considerations section. It is not clear the entire list of documents has any good reason to be considered in this list. This appears to just be a shotgun approach rather than a considered approach. B. Algorithms will be deprecated in the registry rather than removed from this specification C. Where do I find the security considerations for use of the algorithms in this document? The general statement without pointers is going to mean it is ignored. * FIXED D. Is the recommendation for matching the key size of the wrapped key and the wrapping key in the body of the text or is it just here? * FIXED -- -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- ietf@augustcellars.com | algorithms@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Editorial | Milestone: Component: json-web- | Version: algorithms | Resolution: Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/158#comment:1> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
- [jose] #158: Section 7. Security Considerations jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #158: Section 7. Security Consideratio… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #158: Section 7. Security Consideratio… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #158 (json-web-algorithms): Section 7.… jose issue tracker