Re: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)

+1

Breaking deployed code as raised by Brian, Naveen and others is a 
critical consideration.

Thanks,
George

On 6/13/13 10:19 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
> Jim and Karen, could you please do as Richard suggests and close this 
> issue as “won’t fix”.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -- Mike
>
> *From:*Richard Barnes [mailto:rlb@ipv.sx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:57 PM
> *To:* jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Mike Jones
> *Subject:* Fwd: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding 
> (base64)
>
> In other words: Chairs, feel free to close/wontfix :)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Richard Barnes* <rlb@ipv.sx <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>>
> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding 
> (base64)
> To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com 
> <mailto:mamille2@cisco.com>>
> Cc: jose issue tracker <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:trac%2Bjose@trac.tools.ietf.org>>, 
> "<draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org>>" 
> <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org>>, 
> "<michael.jones@microsoft.com <mailto:michael.jones@microsoft.com>>" 
> <michael.jones@microsoft.com <mailto:michael.jones@microsoft.com>>, 
> "<jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org>>" <jose@ietf.org 
> <mailto:jose@ietf.org>>
>
> To be clear, I structured my message in two parts for a reason, to 
> separate the analysis from the opinion.  I acknowledge that I am but 
> one voice here, and I'm increasingly hearing how alone I am :)
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx 
> <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>> wrote:
>
>     <impartial-analysis>
>
>     So just to be clear on the trade-off the WG has to make:
>
>     On the one hand: Breaking every existing JWT implementation in the
>     world
>
>     On the other hand: Eternally binding ourselves to base64 encoding,
>     even if binary-safe encodings become available (CBOR, MsgPack, etc.)
>
>     </impartial-analysis >
>
>     <personal-opinion>
>
>     I have some sympathy with JWT implementors.  It sucks to have to
>     refactor code.  But I think we're literally talking about
>     something like a 5-line patch.  And early JWT implementors knew or
>     should have known (to use a DC phrase) that they were dealing with
>     a draft spec.  As the W3C editor's draft template says, in big
>     bold red print, "Implementors who are not taking part in the
>     discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from
>     under them in incompatible ways."
>
>     As PHB pointed out in the other thread, it would be nice to use
>     JWS and JWE in place of CMS one day, without the base64 hit.  We
>     should incur the implementation pain now, and get the design right
>     for the long run.  Base64 is a hack around JSON; we should build
>     the system so that when we no longer need that hack, it can go away.
>
>     </personal-opinion>
>
>     --Richard
>
>     On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2)
>     <mamille2@cisco.com <mailto:mamille2@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     I did at first find it curious why the cryptographic operations
>     were over the base64url-enccoded values, but I was also very
>     focused on JWE, where I think the field separation problem is less
>     of an issue (at least now).  For JWS, this would certainly cause
>     problems without some manner of unambiguous field parameterization.
>
>     I will note that unescaped NULL is not valid in JSON, so it could
>     be used as a separator between the encoded header and the payload.
>      I do find it interesting if JOSE could more easily and
>     efficiently support other encodings.  However, I think that while
>     this is an interesting thought experiment, it seems we're too far
>     down the path to seriously consider it unless the current state
>     were shown to be horribly broken.
>
>
>     - m&m
>
>     Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com <mailto:mamille2@cisco.com> >
>     Cisco Systems, Inc.
>
>
>     On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:01 PM, jose issue tracker
>     <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
>     <mailto:trac%2Bjose@trac.tools.ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>     > #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)
>     >
>     >
>     > Comment (by michael.jones@microsoft.com
>     <mailto:michael.jones@microsoft.com>):
>     >
>     > For both serializations, you already need the base64url encoded
>     versions
>     > of the JWS Header and the JWS Payload to preserve them in
>     transmission, so
>     > computing them isn't an extra burden.  In the JWS Compact
>     Serialization,
>     > you already need the concatenation of the Encoded JWS Header, a
>     period
>     > character, and the Encoded JWS Payload, so computing that
>     concatenation
>     > isn't an extra burden.  Given you already have that quantity,
>     computing
>     > the signature over it is the easiest thing for developers to do,
>     and it's
>     > been shown to work well in practice.  There's no compelling
>     reason to make
>     > this change.
>     >
>     > Even for the JSON Serialization, the only "extra" step that's
>     required to
>     > compute the signature is the concatenation with the period
>     character - to
>     > prevent shifting of data from one field to the other, as
>     described by Jim
>     > Schaad in the e-mail thread.  So this step isn't actually
>     "extra" at all -
>     > it's necessary.  It's also highly advantageous to use exactly
>     the same
>     > computation for both serializations, which is currently the case.
>     >
>     > Since there is no compelling reason to make this change, and
>     since making
>     > it could enable the "shifting" problem identified by Jim, it
>     should not be
>     > made.
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>     > Reporter: rlb@ipv.sx <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>   |       Owner:
>      draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
>     >     Type:  defect       | encryption@tools.ietf.org
>     <mailto:encryption@tools.ietf.org>
>     > Priority:  major        |  Status:  new
>     > Component:  json-web-    | Milestone:
>     >  encryption             | Version:
>     > Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
>     > Keywords:               |
>     >
>     -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > Ticket URL:
>     <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23#comment:2>
>     > jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
>     >
>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > jose mailing list
>     > jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

-- 
George Fletcher <http://connect.me/gffletch>

Re: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)

Attachment: XeC