Return-Path: 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 D0CE21A0013; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 Z4aWRVJ7AnsW; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0186.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 738B51A0033; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BN3PR0301CA0049.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.152.145) by BL2PR03MB616.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.109.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:31:08 +0000 Received: from BN1AFFO11FD012.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::157) by BN3PR0301CA0049.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:401e::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:31:09 +0000 Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1AFFO11FD012.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.52.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.11 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:31:08 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.78]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.002; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:30:57 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: Roni Even , "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms.all@tools.ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31 Thread-Index: Ac/F2mpuDG6JcxI/SbuImTKmZa3+rwCmp0KQ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:30:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AE82354@TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: <013201cfc5da$6c34dd60$449e9820$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <013201cfc5da$6c34dd60$449e9820$@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.72] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AE82354TK5EX14MBXC294r_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(438002)(199003)(189002)(51914003)(43784003)(377424004)(377454003)(4396001)(26826002)(74662001)(77982001)(20776003)(92566001)(104016003)(50986999)(2201001)(74502001)(83322001)(85852003)(86362001)(33656002)(92726001)(19300405004)(86612001)(55846006)(76482001)(87936001)(79102001)(230783001)(19580395003)(19625215002)(46102001)(83072002)(95666004)(6806004)(19580405001)(76176999)(80022001)(54356999)(69596002)(77096002)(15975445006)(84676001)(81342001)(15202345003)(107046002)(512954002)(2656002)(21056001)(68736004)(85306004)(16236675004)(90102001)(106466001)(84326002)(97736001)(19617315012)(81542001)(64706001)(99396002)(66066001)(81156004)(44976005)(31966008)(71186001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB616; H:mail.microsoft.com; FPR:; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:; X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY) X-Forefront-PRVS: 0324C2C0E2 Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.37 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=131.107.125.37; helo=mail.microsoft.com; Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 131.107.125.37) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/eYYx_YdhrA0S2k_lyBL0wXBV8do Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" , "jose@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [jose] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31 X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:31:50 -0000 --_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AE82354TK5EX14MBXC294r_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the review, Roni. I'm also cc'ing the working group so they're = aware of your review. Replies are inline below... From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 4:47 AM To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.or= g Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-AR= T, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you m= ay receive. Document: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2014-9-1 IETF LC End Date: 2014-9-3 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: 1. Section 4.8 "This section defines the specifies" should be "specifics= " Thanks 1. Section 5.2.2 "Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.2.5" should be "through" s= ince 5.2.4 also defines instances. Agreed 1. Section 5.2.2.1 in bullet 1 "the values of these parameters are speci= fied by the AEAD algorithms (in Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.2.5)". Did you = mean AEAD in which case is should be expanded and a reference is probably n= eeded or do you need to change it to Authenticated Encryption? Also the "an= d" should be "through" same as previous comment. Yes, the "AEAD" should become "Authenticated Encryption" to be consistent w= ith the rest of the spec. And agreed about "through". 1. In section 5.2.2.1 bullet 4 for "number of bits in A" I had to go to = bullet 5 to see what A is. Maybe add also here "additional authenticated da= ta" "A" is defined in the first sentence of 5.2.2.1 as "additional authenticate= d data". But there would be no harm the addition you propose. Knowing tha= t it's defined in the first sentence, do you still want to see the addition= ? Thanks agai= n, -- Mike --_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AE82354TK5EX14MBXC294r_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for the review, Roni.  I’m al= so cc’ing the working group so they’re aware of your review.&nb= sp; Replies are inline below…

 

From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@= gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 4:47 AM
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@= ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31=

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART= reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at = <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&= gt;.

Pl= ease resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may= receive.

Document:  d=
raft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31<=
/o:p>

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–9-1

IETF LC End Date: 2014–9-3

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is ready for pub= lication as a standard track RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

 

Ni= ts/editorial comments:

  1. Section 4.8 “This section defines the specifies” should be R= 20;specifics”

 

Thanks

 

  1. Section 5.2.2 “Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.2.5” should be ̶= 0;through” since 5.2.4 also defines instances.

 

Agreed

 

  1. Section 5.2.2.1 in bullet 1 “the values of these parameters are speci= fied by the AEAD algorithms (in Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.2.5)”. Di= d you mean AEAD in which case is should be expanded and a reference is prob= ably needed or do you need to change it to Authenticated Encryption? Also the “and” should be “through” sam= e as previous comment.

 

Yes, the “AEAD” should become ̶= 0;Authenticated Encryption” to be consistent with the rest of the spe= c.  And agreed about “through”.

 

  1. In section 5.2.2.1 bullet 4 for “number of bits in A“ I had to = go to bullet 5 to see what A is. Maybe add also here “additional auth= enticated data”

 

“A” is defined in the first sentenc= e of 5.2.2.1 as “additional authenticated data”.  But ther= e would be no harm the addition you propose.  Knowing that it’s = defined in the first sentence, do you still want to see the addition?

 

        = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;      Thanks again,

        = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            &nbs= p;     -- Mike

 

--_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AE82354TK5EX14MBXC294r_--