Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Mon, 08 August 2011 17:56 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 3221821F8B2E for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, 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 raCkci+cwaVf for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9FB21F8B23 for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so3860828vws.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.26.163 with SMTP id m3mr5954288vdg.82.1312826206651; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.213] ([190.22.90.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id er5sm952470vdb.26.2011.08.08.10.56.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_889604BA-A29C-4043-9C6B-BB0F3EEF0759"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E402023.4000603@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:57:05 -0400
Message-Id: <9B0F1082-3DB9-4614-A8A9-EAE48249ACF7@ve7jtb.com>
References: <0c100e09-dad3-4cc5-87a2-b42f1f6c834b@default> <4E4011CC.7030903@adida.net> <1312823364.5484.21.camel@dynamo> <DD481E68-7917-4F79-86E2-244A3D87FFAD@ve7jtb.com> <4E402023.4000603@adida.net>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
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: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:56:24 -0000

That is a larger issue, that I prefer to leave for a later charter.

We both have specs (arguably competing ones) that require JOSE in a timely manner.  

Tide and the Web wait for no SDO:)

John

On 2011-08-08, at 1:42 PM, Ben Adida wrote:

> On 8/8/11 10:38 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>> We just can't assume that it is trivial to reemployment PKIX X.509
>> processing in all new environments. Using public keys without PKIX, is a
>> simpler task.
> 
> Exactly. And even the certificate format world could use a *much* simpler, more webby approach than X.509.
> 
> -Ben
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes