IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<Axel.Nennker@telekom.de> Fri, 12 April 2013 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Axel.Nennker@telekom.de>
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 B3D2421F8A68 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.081
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 TTKJXuy4zalM for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFFB21F8A38 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from he111297.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.90.15]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 12 Apr 2013 08:23:40 +0200
Received: from HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.90.94]) by HE111297.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([fe80::9835:b110:c489:6d64%16]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:23:39 +0200
From: Axel.Nennker@telekom.de
To: odonoghue@isoc.org, jose@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:23:36 +0200
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #15: Should at least on key indicator be mandatory
Thread-Index: Ac43EJ+ImXSR2dOzS4mWTRvutlg73AANN2VQ
Message-ID: <CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF402553CF16243@HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <51674E63.3050809@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <51674E63.3050809@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF402553CF16243HE111541eme_"
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 06:23:43 -0000

Please reissue this question. This is ambiguous.

1A: A key indicator SHOULD  be included but can be omitted because use cases where key information is exchanged by means other than the JWS or JWE headers are important.

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:00 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