IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal@idmachines.com> Sat, 20 April 2013 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sal@idmachines.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 632A621F8F0F for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Ys8ClOYsCaLp for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5DA21F8EC6 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod1.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.113]) by atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3K2dYeE011777 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:39:34 -0400
Received: (qmail 4494 invoked by uid 0); 20 Apr 2013 02:39:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO salPC) (sal@idmachines.com@74.104.35.96) by 0 with ESMTPA; 20 Apr 2013 02:39:33 -0000
From: Salvatore D'Agostino <sal@idmachines.com>
To: jose@ietf.org
References: <51674E2D.3040604@isoc.org> <260FAD4C9002884C89DF49EF8776EB9B2A9811513C@DFW1MBX21.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
In-Reply-To: <260FAD4C9002884C89DF49EF8776EB9B2A9811513C@DFW1MBX21.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:39:32 -0400
Message-ID: <06ad01ce3d70$4a406a10$dec13e30$@com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac47njKX6TxLCycWTrauXYRaLSmvWgB0gQoQ
Content-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_06A5_01CE3D4E.BE90FF00"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:39:38 -0000

1

 

 

 

Salvatore D'Agostino, CSCIP

IDmachines LLC |1264 Beacon Street, #5 | Brookline, MA  02446 | USA

 <http://www.idmachines.com/> http:\\www.idmachines.com |
<http://idmachines.blogspot.com/> http:\\idmachines.blogspot.com |
@idmachines

+1 617.201.4809 ph | +1 617.812.6495 fax

 

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Karen O'Donoghue
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:59 PM
To: jose@ietf.org
Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a
"spi" header field?

 

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email