Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts

Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> Sun, 12 July 2015 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sakimura@gmail.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 D616D1A86FC for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 KL3aYodih9tb for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 62BE11A86F7 for <jose@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oibn4 with SMTP id n4so9880389oib.3 for <jose@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=di22uZeHRQnhav1yh9+SM+zJb54GpTUWpGaU0KBNs1A=; b=b+icifD1GegBj+FxmBq8DJammQSY94yXCiaNSTYPLuER95u35xEQgBctVrhdz67VFg jsJZNIdoJVsrerH/Tb+cSfC7vKZYpkIaFdMMtRj962zcAV73f8/FbFfy3qncgfcR+Dwc Vvx2UypiFVA50TKHFwzYRLBD85I2rPy/br37OrEt+xZy1ML6XvBmjSe34xhNaBvJzVCy eGnVPTaGJGbm6mn3fL9DLP5i+9tG9hnRIHNWlJMz0HsH3bgQqhSZAWOy3VzGRoICdqu+ uDHcQAfMbtEwYLwg8oO1M95PLdCFyhcz23dLQ5mI7/46IaOxIAUya/X0nnrtyyuIGqgf QcFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.74.2 with SMTP id p2mr26818166oev.57.1436722335796; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.96.66 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0B8C5F38-DE8A-474B-B8DC-8B53B824C5BD@gmail.com>
References: <8FF9C9E8-7259-4818-ADC2-8D70E4FBB9E9@isoc.org> <BY2PR03MB4424F0C2B5D8839444DD44CF5900@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0B8C5F38-DE8A-474B-B8DC-8B53B824C5BD@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:32:15 +0900
Message-ID: <CABzCy2A_yxx+WFSLJiw5ZBPfGaR5de5Lf0uaPFbaMGOnzWSnpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11360288775778051ab0fc89"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/X-1kVTmo_P5qx9IfaVYwXH4tDCs>
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.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 17:32:19 -0000

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>:

> Hi,
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>  About
> 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 “Make
> crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)”.
>
>
>
> About
> 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 “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
> and 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 <jose-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Karen O'Donoghue
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:38 AM
> *To:* 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-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karen
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en