IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [stir] JWT/JSON (was - Re: Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 21 August 2016 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0161112D7B6 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 r_vMglBKPLEZ for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (unknown [72.52.113.5]) (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 6819812D7B3 for <stir@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u7LGU80i026000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:30:08 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1471797008; bh=759XVyMMke5BAUmNVuqes/r9E/hM8AyDw8nwiFxaR30=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PE9xTDSjgWXX/xAc6hHZJmGybn9rJzEzE8VH5hzZZIBPBoNBpzJvukAsMPQUZD5S+ Iw+60SZwfp1MxMmrrFLxhjM2N81o11LFhfl5vaBQW2acjTVMcArFUy2zFIA5mITyrj RFFJn437cGVDFoKQziIFUaSFfoHNKKAl1setCVgQ=
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <07e0eb16-6758-cdf1-c571-1f1ed768e741@dcrocker.net> <D3C152B2.1A69BA%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <b096b541-c8af-9617-c9d7-5a1beb5230e8@dcrocker.net> <D3C16040.1A6A09%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <d66d91f0-9ea2-6295-e749-e48ea37b4892@dcrocker.net> <cfd714ce-6145-1b60-aca2-ae702a8c133d@dcrocker.net> <CABcZeBNQgsjDOrW2k4WOucTVXSMHjEUjKgGkhYT119Z3yoUv1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <ca7ad669-02c8-fa6f-038e-9dc2b3284bb1@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:29:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNQgsjDOrW2k4WOucTVXSMHjEUjKgGkhYT119Z3yoUv1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/zti2Eykc-mWET6mmgHEhXKZuT5E>
Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [stir] JWT/JSON (was - Re: Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:30:00 -0000

On 8/21/2016 8:37 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Whenever we want to add some cryptographic functionality to a
> protocol [0] (especially when it's messaging/object security
> functionality) we have to ask whether it would be better to define
> something new, specific to the protocol, and hopefully simple, or
> reuse something pre-existing, generic, and presumably more
> complicated. In my experience, the history of those who take the
> former approach is that we find ourselves reinventing a bunch of
> stuff and that it's not as simple as we hoped [1][2]


We agree.

I'm not sure what the point of saying here is, since it is highly 
consonant with points I have posted here more than once.



d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email