[jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations
"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Tue, 19 March 2013 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.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 8307321F8C85 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.374
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 R476tpsPYYdM for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4D621F8BF2 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4391; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363702650; x=1364912250; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=uvCadwsKyu9O6fNLA5HTUyYEsz+PblzarDcUPWam58U=; b=XAtxuHDd9Y9anT+ygXmtMCMwgS83IB0ODnW55CadvtCyDW2Sms+Vr2nt aejUivHNhhCuBGKyjpJytYr3p7/Ve2vX1mNsguduwep8ztlvQne7cmz8h U6l0elyIpC0dGpxWdOO+4PX0hLVXrwEaafSXugkDxIJsRGtDoOUHoEtwl Y=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2283
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwFAJJySFGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABDh1i9PIFWFm0HgiYBBIELASomMCcEEwgGiAahGJEVkCGOXYMXYQOPPIEoln2DCoIo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,872,1355097600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="189052333"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2013 14:17:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2JEHSNG018349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:17:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.203]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0500
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: JWK Parameter Registry Considerations
Thread-Index: AQHOJKx8FqJE351Np0SzIVUR6z+Zdw==
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411517BB87@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.61]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9232BA5C-B8CB-41B9-A7CB-F3F404858AC5"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:17:31 -0000
In thinking about the JWK parameter registry, I have a couple of questions/concerns.
1) Should JWK parameter names be absolutely unique, or are they potentially tied to a specific JWK type? In looking at the specs to date, I think there's only one case where a parameter name is re-used ("d" for both private RSA and ECC keys); currently syntactically and semantically identical, but I'm not sure that's adequate.
2) Should JWK parameters be marked as private (confidential, secret, privileged, etc etc)? The current documentation set loosely defines this only because they are current split between multiple documents. However, I wonder if there is value in being much more explicit about it, including in a parameter's registration.
Thoughts?
- m&m
Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
- [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Brian Campbell
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Manger, James H
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Daniel Holth
- Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations Matt Miller (mamille2)