Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration review request : draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 01 November 2018 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: jwt-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jwt-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2831130E10 for <jwt-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <XkNvTo4HBZUf>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char 9C hex): Received: ...s kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)\n\t\234by outgoing.mit[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XkNvTo4HBZUf for <jwt-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40FA130DF2 for <jwt-reg-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074422-9dbff70000000d6f-3c-5bdb32918062
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C6.E6.03439.3923BDB5; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.9.2) with ESMTP id wA1H6Ma3025495 for <jwt-reg-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:06:24 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) �by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id wA1H6Ish022668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <jwt-reg-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:06:21 -0400
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 12:06:18 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: jwt-reg-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181101170618.GC45914@kduck.kaduk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nrjvZ6Ha0wa8phhbnXjcwOTB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr41hnF3vBLZaKFw8vsDYwvmHuYuTkkBAwkej69461i5GLQ0hg DZPEn1vb2CGcc4wSC65MZIJwfjFJ7Ft0mx2khUVARWLpliVsIDYbkN3QfRloFAeHiIC0RNOT MJCwsECYxKqzU8FKeIE2XJy+gh3CFpQ4OfMJC4jNLKAlcePfSyaQVmag1uX/OEDCogLKEnv7 DrFPYOSdhaRjFpKOWQgdCxiZVzHKpuRW6eYmZuYUpybrFicn5uWlFuma6uVmluilppRuYgQH kovSDsaJ/7wOMQpwMCrx8Eao3o4WYk0sK67MPcQoycGkJMr77cqtaCG+pPyUyozE4oz4otKc 1OJDjBIczEoivJMvAOV4UxIrq1KL8mFS0hwsSuK8E1sWRwsJpCeWpGanphakFsFkZTg4lCR4 lxoC7REsSk1PrUjLzClBSDNxcIIM5wEa/hSkhre4IDG3ODMdIn+KUVFKnPedAVBCACSRUZoH 1wuKdIns/TWvGMWBXhHmLQVp5wEmCbjuV0CDmYAGc7HfABlckoiQkmpg9Da4YlomukfvTZaa xIYI3hIeN//z6zeXPHQ5faSML3vmgm/xXNlWz3KMXfSrOOZzH7mnNz15s/2/ee13jA/wNpk9 1Mh5d/Vs7ZMdEZl8ExtXzb6pGH6Tt9qxetHqeWtsH/a7bebd/vPe6n0HfklrXv1dEKt8hpFp auHBW8zL/3yVu75+ff/SHCWW4oxEQy3mouJEALEl4VfPAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jwt-reg-review/Z_Hye3XHVjMEr4iuqhdJ9XTWOno>
Subject: Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration review request : draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken
X-BeenThere: jwt-reg-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Expert review of proposed IANA registrations for JSON Web Token \(JWT\) claims." <jwt-reg-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jwt-reg-review>, <mailto:jwt-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jwt-reg-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:jwt-reg-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jwt-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-reg-review>, <mailto:jwt-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 17:06:37 -0000
The requested registrations include: "attest", "Attestation level as defined in SHAKEN framework" "origid", "Originating Identifier as defined in SHAKEN" It seems unlikely to me that SHAKEN is the only group that will ever want an attestation level, and probably not the only one for an originating identifier either (though I did not read the draft yet and am going just by the name). What are the normal considerations that the Experts are applying about generic names and whether additional references could be added for the claim indicating its usage in alternative contexts? -Ben
- [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration review re… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Brian Campbell
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Mike Jones
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Brian Campbell
- Re: [Jwt-reg-review] JWT claim registration revie… Benjamin Kaduk