IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] JWK member names, was: [jose] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 15 September 2014 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66C71A036A; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 5vJKKtsEEasL; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE9A1A0363; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:33013 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1XTXhR-000GDl-Ea; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:56:17 -0400
Message-ID: <5416FE10.3060608@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:56:16 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>, "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
References: <CAHbuEH4Ccn2Z=8kEECzvgjmtshwsFoa-EH_NpkJPos7zirGeaQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AEC00DB@TK5EX14MBXC292.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AEC00DB@TK5EX14MBXC292.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050408030108070408080803"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ao7rRkotzjSyOh7Aor1_fEdpNjI
Subject: Re: [secdir] JWK member names, was: [jose] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:56:26 -0000

Mike,

> Sure. Here's an analysis of the requirements about duplicate member names.
>
> There could be two very different kinds of objections to the present text:
>
> A. People think we have the semantics for duplicate identifiers wrong.
>
> B. People think we should explain the current semantics for duplicate 
> identifiers more clearly.
>
> I sure hope that we're dealing with B and not A.  Stephen, which is 
> the nature of your critique of this text?
>
C- don't accept duplicate IDs, is what I was hoping for.

I noted why allowing a recipient to accept a dup name, and use just the 
last instance, will
likely lead to such behavior being perpetuated, based on PKIX experience.

Also, in a reply to Tim, I think you argued that people have already 
implemented JOSE and so
we ought not make any changes at this late stage. If that's what you 
said, I disagree emphatically.
The IETF always warns implementers that specs may change until an RFC is 
published, and thus
one implements a pre-RFC spec at risk.

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email