IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Tue, 02 April 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 9742321F8D6A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.823
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 RbVv3BW8YW6p for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F2C21F8D3A for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.17]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MQsi0-1UCgUn2GoY-00UFxf for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:53:07 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Apr 2013 18:53:07 -0000
Received: from a88-115-219-140.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.100.200]) [88.115.219.140] by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 02 Apr 2013 20:53:07 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/p7GMgTibprBRCw7APNE67yT8h8c5uzXTnc4hDVS OL/pOUlp60UAU6
Message-ID: <515B2909.901@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:52:57 +0300
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <005301ce2fba$e4c68100$ae538300$@augustcellars.com> <515B1862.2020204@gmx.net> <CAL02cgSLFeh_wzaC0nb7=Xg74_3S2irg9bHxA6cvPF3vbwvTRw@mail.gmail.com> <515B215B.1000104@gmx.net> <CAL02cgT0kRH+4Uz+mTht47r3k-wEJ02cj=RoK8WTZEhOnfkiKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgT0kRH+4Uz+mTht47r3k-wEJ02cj=RoK8WTZEhOnfkiKA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, jose@ietf.org, draft-barnes-jose-spi@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Comments on draft-barnes-jose-spi-00
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:53:09 -0000

On 04/02/2013 09:25 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> This is exactly my point.  These pre-negotiation cases prevent us from
> having clear requirements levels.
>
> The goal of SPI is to explicitly say "SPI indicates that pre-negotiated
> parameters are being used, so some things that are otherwise REQUIRED
> might be missing."  That way, you can still have fields that MUST be
> included in general, but if you include an SPI, you can omit them.

AHA. Now I got it.

There are two options to address it:

1) Create a new parameter, as you suggested

2) Fix the specs
(to allow parameters like alg to be optional)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email