Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?

Javier Rojas Blum <javier@gluu.org> Fri, 19 April 2013 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <javier@gluu.org>
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 E53B221F9376 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.252
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.084, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 UJfB9NJmpApy for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateway02.websitewelcome.com (gateway02.websitewelcome.com [69.93.139.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDC121F9370 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gateway02.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 2359DF33B8785; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:08:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from gator405.hostgator.com (gator405.hostgator.com [184.172.165.9]) by gateway02.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1706AF33B8754 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:08:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [190.186.177.27] (port=40996 helo=localhost.localdomain) by gator405.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <javier@gluu.org>) id 1UT1gF-0003Ou-Fo; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:08:07 -0500
Message-ID: <5170B516.4050604@gluu.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:08:06 -0400
From: Javier Rojas Blum <javier@gluu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "charles.marais@orange.com" <charles.marais@orange.com>
References: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org> <516E988B.2050304@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <516E988B.2050304@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030906050505040907050203"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator405.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - gluu.org
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: (localhost.localdomain) [190.186.177.27]:40996
X-Source-Auth: javier+gluu.org
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: ZGlnaW1vbjtkaWdpbW9uO2dhdG9yNDA1Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20=
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?
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, 19 Apr 2013 03:08:10 -0000

1


On 04/17/2013 08:41 AM, charles.marais@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1.  Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that 
> could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations.
>
> Br,
>
> Charles Marais.
>
> Le 12/04/2013 01:58, Karen O'Donoghue a écrit :
>> Issue #8 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/8 
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/8> proposes adding an 
>> "spi" (security parameters index) header parameter to the JWS and JWE 
>> specifications.  This modification to the JOSE formats would allow 
>> for signaling that pre-negotiated cryptographic parameters are being 
>> used, rather than including those parameters in the JWS or JWE 
>> header.  This proposal has been written up as 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-spi-00.
>>
>> Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?
>>
>> 1.  Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that 
>> could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations.
>>
>> 2.  Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE 
>> specifications as a mandatory feature.
>>
>> 3.  Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE 
>> specifications as an optional feature.
>>
>> 4.  Another resolution (please specify in detail).
>>
>> 0.  I need more information to decide.
>>
>> Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19^th or earlier.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> jose@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
> -- 
>
> *MARAIS Charles*
> *FT/OLNC/OLPS/ASE/IDEA/UED *
> Tel : 02.96.05.24.18
> charles.marais@orange.com <mailto:charles.marais@orange.com>
> WF004Bis / R&D Lannion / 2, avenue Pierre Marzin / 22307 LANNION Cedex 
> - France
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose