Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Prabath Siriwardena <prabath@wso2.com>
wrote:

> I intend to review both the drafts and will post the results here in next
> couple of works. ..
>

works --> weeks

>
> Thanks & regards,
> -Prabath
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> It's good too see that a few people do support these drafts.  Will each
>> of you be sending reviews and comments to the list shortly on these
>> drafts?  If the chairs think it's reasonable to accept the drafts, they
>> will also need to know there will be active support.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>; Karen O'Donoghue <
>> odonoghue@isoc.org>; "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:32 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Prabath
>
> Twitter : @prabath
> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/prabathsiriwardena
>
> Mobile : +1 650 625 7950
>
> http://blog.facilelogin.com
> http://blog.api-security.org
>

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Prabath

Twitter : @prabath
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/prabathsiriwardena

Mobile : +1 650 625 7950

http://blog.facilelogin.com
http://blog.api-security.org