Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 13:33 UTC
Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 2059521F8B46 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GhOz4e+TpJHg for
<woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com
[209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A8021F8B40 for
<woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so2753979vxi.31 for <woes@ietf.org>;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 06:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.26.134 with SMTP id l6mr2187452vdg.487.1312551208329;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 06:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] ([190.22.109.237]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS
id jv3sm1415840vdb.35.2011.08.05.06.33.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5C6DD9A-5D66-4AD0-943F-A25826362BFB";
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E3BE575.4070707@mnt.se>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:33:38 -0400
Message-Id: <12AF8FBA-F3BF-4A6A-84CA-6011B1845AB1@ve7jtb.com>
References: <b9332337-4efa-4355-93a9-7866a5506bb5@default> <CA60EB18.D5CF%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
<CAMm+LwggXXryGuk7gxovPi2FyOpx2UoEc_b0nYGJV=PJ=WXUWw@mail.gmail.com>
<4E3BE575.4070707@mnt.se>
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: woes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, 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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:33:12 -0000
JWS and JWE specified both. I agree both need to be supported. John B. On 2011-08-05, at 8:43 AM, Leif Johansson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/05/2011 02:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> Support for naked keys is useful. >> >> Lack of support for certificates where needed would be unacceptable and >> render the format unsuited for many of the applications we need it for. >> >> Certificates are pretty simple to deal with. The problems that they are used >> to address are not simple. > > I also think you need both. Sometimes you need to use a key for both > signing and TLS for instance. > >> >> Whatever you thought of the 'Trust Router' proposal made at last IETF, it is >> certainly no simpler than the PKI based approach and that is before they >> have put it in operation and found the operational requirements. > > I don't think that proposal is targeted for anything that comes even > remotely close to signed objects. Lets not go there. > > Cheers Leif > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk475XUACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndQEwCeNnyVkj0xpDRhvDuSNSH4/Mig > GH8An3R2UeKcGxUzpZhuUG8/Hakfx5z0 > =XbMB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > woes@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
- [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] 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