Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU> Wed, 10 August 2011 18:38 UTC
Return-Path: <hardjono@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F276921F8B05 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ldMX0vUnyqRc for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-2.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C5821F8ABE for <woes@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190d-b7be0ae000000a16-37-4e42cf8bfe4e
Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 9C.4E.02582.B8FC24E4; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:35:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing-exchange-2.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-2.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.16]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p7AIcg2V022631; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:38:42 -0400
Received: from W92EXEDGE5.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU (W92EXEDGE5.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.22]) by outgoing-exchange-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p7AIceb8021759; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:38:41 -0400
Received: from oc11exhub6.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.16) by W92EXEDGE5.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU (18.7.73.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.1; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:38:20 -0700
Received: from EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.15]) by oc11exhub6.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.3.16]) with mapi; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:38:37 -0400
From: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>
To: Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>, "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:38:36 -0400
Thread-Topic: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Thread-Index: AcxWPNcHBGaoFzKlTHKeGEC10gBurwAgJQrQAAFgpisABCcNIAAmicM/AAeQUlA=
Message-ID: <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E750426DA@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
References: <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E7504259F@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu> <CA67F840.DC01%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA67F840.DC01%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrBKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrNt93snPYPUjHovfV9eyW1z4PpvJ gcljyZKfTB7P7rQwBzBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGVcmPOUrWA2b8WHPbfYGhh3c3UxcnJICJhI bN5wnwnCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwD5GiWubV7FCOAcYJR5u2ccE4VxhlJj66jmUs41RYveBp8wg /UICExgllt21AbHZBDQkzv3ey97FyMEhIuAncWhRNUiYRUBVYm/fPnYQW1ggXWLO+z1gq0UE MiS2H+1mhrD9JH5/v8gKYvMKBEgsWXWKDWJ8tcSSBU9ZQEZyCphKbHntBRJmBLr6+6k1YGOY BcQlbj2ZD/WNoMSi2XuYYT77t+shG0S9qMSd9vWMEPU6Egt2f2KDsLUlli18zQyxVlDi5Mwn LED/zEIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKKUTYlt0o3NzEzpzg1Wbc4OTEvL7VI10gvN7NELzWldBMj OAIleXcwvjuodIhRgINRiYeXabWTnxBrYllxZe4hRkkOJiVRXqZzQCG+pPyUyozE4oz4otKc 1OJDjBIczEoivFLzgHK8KYmVValF+TApaQ4WJXHewh0OfkIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZGQ4OJQne AmCiERIsSk1PrUjLzClBSDNxcIIM5wEargtSw1tckJhbnJkOkT/FqCglzqsNkhAASWSU5sH1 whLkK0ZxoFeEeXVAqniAyRWu+xXQYCagwfV3HEAGlyQipKQaGG8stNduYOHq3iPErGDSYtbg H7gg6K9F++PO2etk75n9lhbu+3jxV1hjpugN86smy2YdsV74npmDO5glt88wX0b19Jyl6atd /RrkxNuO+zUW8t7cUTHnLO+cT58VJTOlXljvs9i+2HWB3/wvYf7CFkbcTg2nU5Z5HXVeoNy4 +P3/H913E95PVmIpzkg01GIuKk4EAIUGeRtrAwAA
Subject: Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Web Object Encryption and Signing \(woes\) BOF discussion list" <woes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/woes>
List-Post: <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:38:12 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Hildebrand [mailto:joe.hildebrand@webex.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:57 AM > To: Thomas Hardjono; woes@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: > Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition > > On 8/9/11 2:43 PM, "Thomas Hardjono" <hardjono@MIT.EDU> wrote: > > > Its perfectly ok (and necessary for interop) for the implementers to > > agree beforehand about which cipher(s) are must implement. > > I'd phrase this "agree beforehand" as the mandatory-to-implement set of > algorithms. I read your original message as saying that you didn't > think there should be *any* MTI algorithms. If I misread, then we're > on the same page. Hi Joe, Apologies if I miscommunicated -- I think we're on the same page :) > > > Support for multiple > > ciphers is a good thing. However, there is no need to call these out > > within the JOSE specification. > > The proposal on the table is for there to be a second draft which > contains the MTI algorithms. ok, great. > > > Perhaps the chairs can simply do a WG consensus call to ask which > > ciphers/algorithms to implement as part of the first WG deliverables. > > We'd need to write that consensus down in a document so that folks who > came along later would know what we decided. Drafts don't *have* to be > long and complicated. :) Agree. Typically IETF WGs do not maintain strict meeting Minutes :( So perhaps the next best thing would be for the Charter to list the second draft (listing the MTI ciphers/algorithms) as a WG deliverable, with a delivery date. /thomas/
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charte… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand