IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> Thu, 11 April 2013 23:59 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 2A0CF21F890F for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:59:32 -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 cjgfkmRcuun2 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp102.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp102.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AA421F86B2 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4FA161B0099 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: odonoghue-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id BCC871B0087 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51674E63.3050809@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:31 -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="------------000309080501090908000007"
Subject: [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
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 23:59:32 -0000

Issue #15 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/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 19^th (or earlier).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email