IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.com>
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 2CBEB21F95B4 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 OIeonAh3ExfZ for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0209.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A7B21F9577 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD004.protection.gbl (10.173.161.203) by BL2FFO11HUB036.protection.gbl (10.173.161.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.664.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:48 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD004.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:48 +0000
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (157.54.51.81) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:45:29 +0000
Received: from mail79-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.231) by CO1EHSOBE031.bigfish.com (10.243.66.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:19 +0000
Received: from mail79-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79CCB401B1 for <jose@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.240.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -37
X-BigFish: PS-37(z21aILz9371I542Idb82hzz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1082kz97hz1033IL17326ah8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail79-co1: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 157.56.240.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.21; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=BL2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:SKI; SFS:; DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:-1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB042; H:BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; LANG:en;
Received: from mail79-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1366044257825583_23321; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.246]) by mail79-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61F638004A; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.21) by CO1EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (10.243.66.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:17 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB042.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.146) by BL2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.97.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.299.2; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:16 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.145) by BY2PR03MB042.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.670.13; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:14 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.206]) by BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.18]) with mapi id 15.00.0670.000; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:14 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?
Thread-Index: AQHONxDDyzpTU/h4s0WdWZzY41Xj45jVZ6WAgAIDQACAABfg0A==
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:13 +0000
Message-ID: <ecfbb165f94447fda9bad86d3e12b4b0@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org> <E4DAFDF1-0EAE-423A-ABA5-7D4A4B9462B9@adm.umu.se> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943676410FC@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943676410FC@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [77.48.62.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: BY2PR03MB042.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%ISOC.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(13464002)(189002)(5383001)(199002)(377454001)(77982001)(81542001)(74662001)(69226001)(4396001)(47776003)(33646001)(6806002)(74502001)(51856001)(66066001)(56776001)(1511001)(44976003)(65816001)(47736001)(54356001)(15202345002)(5343655001)(16676001)(20776003)(50466001)(47976001)(81342001)(76482001)(59766001)(53806001)(50986001)(561944001)(80022001)(56816002)(46406003)(49866001)(79102001)(46102001)(23726002)(47446002)(63696002)(31966008)(54316002)(42262001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB036; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0817737FD1
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:50 -0000

1

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:19 AM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?

1.  Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations.

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hedberg
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:35 AM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?

1

12 apr 2013 kl. 01:58 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>:

Issue #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 19th or earlier. 
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email