Re: [Jwt-reg-review] review JWT claims registration request (was Re: Fwd: Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport)

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

I attended the STIR WG this morning to better understand the status and expected uses of draft-ietf-stir-passport.  While I might have chosen different claim names, I am convinced that this work is valuable and will be widely deployed.
I just sent a note on the related IANA thread approving the registration of the claims.

                                                       -- Mike

From: Brian Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:14 AM
To: Matt Miller (mamille2) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; John Bradley <[e-mail]>; Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Chuck Mortimore <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>; Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>; Russ Housley <[e-mail]>; Sean Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: review JWT claims registration request (was Re: Fwd: Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Matt. The message to jwt-reg-review had somehow gotten lumped together with the jose-reg-review one in such a way that'd I'd completely overlooked it. I don't know if maybe the same happened to the other 'experts' so I'm including them and the jwt-reg-review address again in this message.
Generally I think the draft-ietf-stir-passport claims registrations look okay. A few comments follow. It'd be a nice courtesy to maybe space and group section 11.2.1 like was done in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519#section-10.1.2 but that's just a nit. I can't help but see the similarity of "orig"/"dest" to "sub"/"aud" and wonder if more couldn't have been done to reuse the existing claims. But having the specific syntax and semantics for PASSporT is understandably nice too. If it were up to me, I'd use base64url encoding rather than hex for mky/dig as it is more space efficient and generally in line with how JWT/JOSE does things but that's just me. You can take or leave those comments though at your choosing.
Hopefully the other reviewers will see this message and we can move things forward.






On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hello Brian,

Do you think you can review this JWT registration?

Thanks,

- m&m
Matt Miller (mobile)

On Oct 18, 2016 1:25 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Matt -

Who should pick this one up? (Jim is taking care of the part that went to jose-reg-review).

We're up against some strong external pressure to get this document suite published, so any nudging to bring this particular review to conclusion would be very helpful.

RjS


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport

Date:

Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:56:37 -0500

From:

Robert Sparks <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>

To:

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

CC:

Jon Peterson <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Russ Housley <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>



Please review the registration request in section 11.2 of

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/><https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/>

The registration request itself is copied below for your convenience.

Robert Sparks - STIR WG co-chair

-----------

11.2.  JSON Web Token Claims Registration



11.2.1.  Registry Contents Additions Requested



   o  Claim Name: "orig"



   o  Claim Description: Originating Identity String



   o  Change Controller: IESG



   o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.1 of [RFCThis]



   o  Claim Name: "dest"



   o  Claim Description: Destination Identity String



   o  Change Controller: IESG



   o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.1 of [RFCThis]



   o  Claim Name: "mky"



   o  Claim Description: Media Key Fingerprint String



   o  Change Controller: IESG



   o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.2 of [RFCThis]