IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #15: Should at least on key indicator be mandatory

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Fri, 12 April 2013 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
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 1201D21F8712 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
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 V2C+GlshhLnG for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22A921F86FA for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,460,1363093200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="123601540"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcbni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.204]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2013 12:54:47 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7042"; a="127051521"
Received: from wsmsg3706.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.80]) by ipcbni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2013 12:54:46 +1000
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3706.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.80]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:54:46 +1000
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:54:44 +1000
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #15: Should at least on key indicator be mandatory
Thread-Index: Ac43EJ6R37T2ze6TT5W+mv0DLipkTQAF4Fng
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1150C5F1498@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <51674E63.3050809@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <51674E63.3050809@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1150C5F1498WSMSG3153Vsrv_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #15: Should at least on key indicator be mandatory
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:54:50 -0000

1A. A key indication SHOULD be included (and certainly must be present in all the examples in the spec).


P.S. Does “Yes” mean “Yes, a key indicator is required”, or does it mean “Yes, use cases where key information is exchanged by means other than the JWS or JWE headers are important” (which implies a key indicator is NOT required)?

--
James Manger

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue
Sent: Friday, 12 April 2013 10:00 AM
To: jose@ietf.org
Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #15: Should at least on key indicator be mandatory

Issue #15 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/15. suggests requiring that a key indicator, such as a “kid” field, be required in all JWS and JWE headers. Are use cases where key information is exchanged by means other than the JWS or JWE headers important?
Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?
1.  Yes.
2.   No.
0.  I need more information to decide.

Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th (or earlier).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email