IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal

Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
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 18BF921F8844 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMOGqh-2oc-c for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1666721F861A for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mamille2@cisco.com; l=4521; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310075357; x=1311284957; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=L9/sePpHsW2fhS9ghqlI34d3Qfnhb2clKvG4aMaAzOc=; b=SfD5fnUNVZJfCZwLkVgUAt6a9vaHjTLqaW0MNDKfYHHAdywy2LR6XzhG RQ6uqYJlsyNpVMV3/u73znKMyk5olotZGy1nJxQBqz+Esv0n8wPKpeAfg jEq6su3reEWq/sf91x4jBjFDwq8M/HH16CmU6zbbWP4kQmXulGooCeX0w A=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2214
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EALIoFk6tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABTpz53iHukVJ10hjgEh0mKfJBe
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,495,1304294400"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="833226"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2011 21:49:16 +0000
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-223.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-223.cisco.com [64.101.72.223]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p67LnGwm025609; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 21:49:16 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-1-1055699005"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <265D01FB-3C2B-47C4-A5B5-0A78A867D443@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:49:40 -0600
Message-Id: <77B478D4-4EEE-4355-B031-189C3C1ADA50@cisco.com>
References: <B2ABF893-10E6-496A-8F63-FFA2C9C89541@vpnc.org> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D3BC49@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <265D01FB-3C2B-47C4-A5B5-0A78A867D443@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:49:18 -0000

On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:58 , Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On Jul 5, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> 
>> I'm still going to hold out for inclusion of the third document or capability needed for end-to-end JSON-based signing and encryption:
>> 
>> 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to represent public keys as JSON data structures.
>> 
>> I know, for instance that the JSON Web Signature (JWS) doc needs to contain a reference to the JSON Web Key (JWK) format, so that also needs to be defined.
> 
> The question is what is the value of defining it in this WG. Why is the key format important for interoperability with the signing and encrypting specs? If we have a strong answer for that, the ADs might be more amenable to adding it; otherwise, it probably falls into the "might be nice to have in the future" category.
> 

I agree with Mike Jones.  Without a common key format, distributing keys becomes much more difficult, which makes implementation and deployment much more difficult.


- m&m

Matt Miller - <mamille2@cisco.com>
Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email