Re: [jose] Preliminary Agenda for Interim Meeting

Not to have technical discussion on the agenda thread, but: That seems like
a decision for application designers to make.  They can always choose to
protect everything.
--Richard

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  Adding missing word … “when applications are free to add header
> parameter values (which they now are), it’s essentially impossible to know
> *what* needs to be protected, in the general case”.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:05 PM
> *To:* Richard Barnes; Jim Schaad
>
> *Cc:* jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Preliminary Agenda for Interim Meeting****
>
>  ** **
>
> Richard, it would be good if you could update your slides to reflect
> JWE-10, which should now be what’s on your “State of the Art” and “Current
> -09” slides.  You should say that -10 it is compatible with all major AEAD
> algorithms and no longer say that the current format causes GCM nonce
> re-use.****
>
> ** **
>
> FYI, -10 uses what you called the “Everyone Together” approach.****
>
> ** **
>
> In your “Only what’s needed” slide, you should point out that when
> applications are free to add header parameter values (which they now are),
> it’s essentially impossible to know needs to be protected, in the general
> case.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             Cheers,****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org<jose-bounces@ietf.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Richard Barnes
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:40 AM
> *To:* Jim Schaad
> *Cc:* jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Preliminary Agenda for Interim Meeting****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear chairs,****
>
> ** **
>
> As I suggested earlier, I think we should organize this meeting around the
> few big questions we need to get resolved, from which the answers to
> individual issues will follow.  So I would like to propose that we
> re-organize the agenda in the following way:****
>
> ** **
>
> 1. Mon. AM: Which fields are required / how to handle pre-negotiation?  **
> **
>
> 2. Mon. PM: How should header parameter integrity protection be done?****
>
> 3. Tue. AM: How should we do key wrapping, for JWE, JWS, and beyond?****
>
> 4. Tue. PM: Review / close issues and wrap up****
>
>  ****
>
> Also, Based on some side discussions, I've put together some slides that
> try to summarize the state of the art and proposals for (2).****
>
> <
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HlBYEiwBFYUBA5751Q8U1GXD-W0cgdCZwpVMRdUkK2c/edit?usp=sharing
> >****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> --Richard****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> wrote:****
>
> The chairs have posted their first cut at an agenda for the Interim
> meeting.****
>
>  ****
>
> It can be found at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2013/04/29/jose/agenda/agenda-interim-2013-jose-1
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Jim****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>
> ** **
>