IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> Thu, 11 April 2013 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <odonoghue@isoc.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 D579D21F86FA for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 jJL6O5ETA0tB for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp86.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp86.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DD221F86B2 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 615DF501F8 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: odonoghue-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id D2C3C501EF for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:58:37 -0400
From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Organization: ISOC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jose@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040307070906070304010509"
Subject: [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
Reply-To: odonoghue@isoc.org
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:58:38 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email