Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

Sorry I just recounted, it is a extra 20 bytes per message with the encoded header and not 6.

That is a bit more but probably not worth dying over.   I still prefer the smaller option.

John B.

> On Dec 17, 2015, at 3:04 PM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I prefer making crit only required if the producer is not certain that all potential recipients understand/the extension.
> 
> However it would not be the end of the world for me from a size perspective if crit was always required.  Trading 6 octets for saving 1/4 of the body size is not a bad trade off.
> 
> The issue for me is more always requiring something to be sent that is known to not be used.
> 
> So I am on the not forcing crit side but could live with the consensus if it goes the other way.
> 
> John B.
> 
>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 2:48 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Great. For completeness, the alternative proposed by James Manger
>> (which I'd also prefer) was:
>> 
>>  The "crit" Header Parameter MUST be included with "b64" in its set
>>  of values to ensure the JWS is rejected (instead of being
>>  misinterpreted) by implementations that do not understand this
>>  specification.
>> 
>> My discuss then is asking if, after all this discussion, the WG
>> prefer the above or that below. I'll take the WG chairs word on what
>> they conclude as the outcome.
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> On 17/12/15 13:44, Mike Jones wrote:
>>> Sure, I'm obviously fine asking the working group what they think of the new text.  Working group - this new text at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08#section-6 is:
>>> 
>>>  6.  Using "crit" with "b64"
>>> 
>>>  If a JWS using "b64" with a value of "false" might be processed by
>>>  implementations not implementing this extension, then the "crit"
>>>  Header Parameter MUST be included with "b64" in its set of values to
>>>  cause such implementations to reject the JWS.  Conversely, if used in
>>>  environments in which all participants implement this extension, then
>>>  "crit" need not be included, since its inclusion would have no
>>>  effect, other than increasing the JWS size and processing costs.
>>> 
>>> 				Thanks all,
>>> 				-- Mike
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:32 PM
>>>> To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-
>>>> options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hiya,
>>>> 
>>>> On 17/12/15 13:20, Mike Jones wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for your review, Stephen.  Replies inline below...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, December 17,
>>>>>> 2015 12:20 PM To: The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc:
>>>>>> [e-mail]; Mike Jones
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject:
>>>>>> Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-
>>>>>> options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: Discuss
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>>>>>> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please refer to
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
>>>>>> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-op
>>>>>> tions/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> The "crit" point raised in the gen-art review and maybe elsewhere is I think
>>>>>> correct but I don't think section 6 of -08 is a good resolution of
>>>>>> this topic. However, I'll clear if this is the WG consensus but it's
>>>>>> hard to know that's the case for text just added yesterday. To
>>>>>> resolve this discuss we just need to see what the WG list says about
>>>>>> the new text.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jim's shepherd write-up at
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-opt
>>>>> ions/shepherdwriteup/ records the working group's desire to not
>>>>> require the use of "crit"
>>>>> when it isn't needed.  He wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "(6)  The fact that there are two different versions of encoding that
>>>>> produce the same text string for signing is worrisome to me.  The WG
>>>>> had the ability to address this when producing the JWS specification
>>>>> and decided not to do so that time.  In this document, the desire to
>>>>> allow for things to be smaller has lead to the fact that the b64 and
>>>>> crit headers can be omitted as being implicit.  This was the desire of
>>>>> the WG, but I personally feel that it is the wrong decision."
>>>> 
>>>> Fair enough, so the chair/shepherd, gen-art reviewer and seems like a few
>>>> IESG members all find the current position unconvincing as does the one
>>>> implementer who posted to the WG list since the new text was added.
>>>> Wouldn't you agree there's enough there to justify asking the WG once more
>>>> what they think about that 13 byte overhead to prevent interop and maybe
>>>> even security problems?
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> - abstract: the description of the update to 7519 is odd. It seems to be saying
>>>>>> "Here we define a thing. This specification updates 7519 to say you
>>>>>> must not use this thing." but prohibiting is an odd verb to use
>>>>>> there. (Since it wasn't previously there to be allowed or not.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would you like this text better?
>>>>> 
>>>>> "This specification updates RFC 7519 by stating that JSON Web Tokens
>>>>> (JWTs) MUST NOT use the unencoded payload option defined by this
>>>>> specification."
>>>> 
>>>> Better yep. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or do you think this spec doesn't need to have the "Updates 7519"
>>>>> clause at all?  People seemed split on whether this was needed or not.
>>>> 
>>>> Happens all the time. Personally I mostly don't care about updates which is
>>>> the case this time too:-)
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> - section 6: "It is intended that application profiles specify up
>>>>>> front whether" "intended" is very wishy washy and "up front" makes no
>>>>>> sense at all.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How about this wording change? "It is intended that application
>>>>> profiles specify up front whether" -> "Application profiles should
>>>>> specify whether"
>>>> 
>>>> Also better,
>>>> Ta,
>>>> S.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again, -- Mike
>>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jose mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>