IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg@adm.umu.se> Sun, 14 April 2013 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.hedberg@adm.umu.se>
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 8CAC221F8F76 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 LZ5eTBKP43Q0 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ad.umu.se (umdac-ch1.ad.umu.se [130.239.1.246]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6EC21F8F6E for <jose@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UMDAC-CCR1.ad.umu.se ([169.254.1.121]) by UMDAC-CH1.ad.umu.se ([130.239.1.246]) with mapi; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:33:59 +0200
From: Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg@adm.umu.se>
To: "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:34:33 +0200
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?
Thread-Index: Ac446s7vqPLohDG6TMqFqCxxF18upA==
Message-ID: <E4DAFDF1-0EAE-423A-ABA5-7D4A4B9462B9@adm.umu.se>
References: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, sv-SE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, sv-SE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:34:37 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email