Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sat, 06 August 2011 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 25BD521F8757 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 07:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NCu56teEYkDY for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 07:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F334421F874C for <woes@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 07:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyf3 with SMTP id 3so159937gyf.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+CvirgPDM9CqaaS1VOyPKQG9y9Pz7lZdOp7KNkoYmpw=; b=SdidV9caN5iX4SzhZfpL0dTBWo+WjyztYNn8UTX6Fr1tN0IDl43pKxv7ugaKhJ0uZm HtPXJrT4BRXxh/PZkC8uUbhkmFfr1k0CPJd/UcWc5CeOmhtEHR4zYEYpwv89QMDbHkEM MfaPgdiFe3D2oR/Z5QFZ3fF82VwgdGXNlZvwo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.254.3 with SMTP id b3mr2948561ani.116.1312639516561; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.34.3 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 07:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2454ACF9-17E5-41D3-A9D9-57B5BC51FBFC@cisco.com>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <4E3A9885.50600@ieca.com> <CAMm+LwjpNMqO3AG6rOsrRgV81M8JJ7V9+uHUAMsmARxr-TCWxg@mail.gmail.com> <8EF83897-EE6B-40C0-B1B6-79A03B38EFD1@ve7jtb.com> <4E3C337E.6050205@ieca.com> <2454ACF9-17E5-41D3-A9D9-57B5BC51FBFC@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:05:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgD6-RXqDsLRx7i4ENr_NToyEZJD=BDpuofVBVUaUKQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Laurenson <jlaurens@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163691ff511a529404a9d6b42d
Cc: woes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [woes] 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: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:04:58 -0000

We absolutely need to make a choice on algorithms.

What I am saying is that I would like to make the choice once every three
years or so as an IETF-wide issue and not have to revisit it in every new WG
and have each WG go through the same discussion.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jeremy Laurenson <jlaurens@cisco.com>wrote;wrote:

> From a Javascript dev perspective, specifying an algorithm will make it a
> hell of of lot easier to implement, instead of having to potentially account
> for multiples.
>
> Lets use the example of a web app that aggregates social media data - just
> for giggles - and uses WOES to secure the communications to well-defined
> interfaces
>
> If multiple vendors' websites implement WOES/JOES/JOSE with different
> algorithms, it becomes more complex vs a single, consistent one.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> > So I'll bite on this ;)
> >
> > I think we can write the spec to require a particular algorithm choice,
> but it might make more sense to define the options and then allow the
> environment in which the solution will be used to specify it's requirements.
>  But, I believe that is a discussion we'll have while writing the spec.
> >
> > spt
> >
> > On 8/4/11 9:29 AM, John Bradley wrote:
> >> HMAC is requirement for adoption in the JWS use cases.
> >>
> >> If we want to describe it as something other than a "Qualified Digital
> >> Signature", that is fine as long as it is MTI:)
> >>
> >> John B.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2011-08-04, at 9:12 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com
> >>> <mailto:turners@ieca.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    On 8/2/11 7:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>        Here is a proposal for the charter based on the discussion in
> >>>        the BoF last week and later discussion with Sean Turner.
> >>>        Comments, praise, scorn, etc., are welcome.
> >>>
> >>>        --Paul and Richard
> >>>
> >>>        Javascript Object Signing and Encrypting (jose)
> >>>        ==============================__=================
> >>>
> >>>        Background
> >>>        ----------
> >>>
> >>>        Javascript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the
> >>>        serialization of structured data described in RFC 4627. The
> >>>        JSON format is often used for serializing and transmitting
> >>>        structured data over a network connection. With the increased
> >>>        usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF and elsewhere, there is
> >>>        now a desire to offer security services such as encryption and
> >>>        digital signatures for data that is being carried in JSON
> format.
> >>>
> >>>        Different proposals for providing such security services have
> >>>        already been defined and implemented. This Working Group's
> >>>        task is to standardize two security services, encrypting and
> >>>        digitally signing, in order to increase interoperability of
> >>>        security features between protocols that use JSON. The Working
> >>>        Group will base its work on well-known message security
> >>>        primitives (e.g., CMS), and will solicit input from the rest
> >>>        of the IETF Security Area to be sure that the security
> >>>        functionality in the JSON format is correct.
> >>>
> >>>        This group is chartered to work on four documents:
> >>>
> >>>        1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a
> >>>        JSON-structured digital signature to data, including (but not
> >>>        limited to) JSON data structures. "Digital signature" is
> >>>        defined as a hash operation followed by a signature operation
> >>>        using asymmetric keys.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    I just want to make sure that we agree now that a digital
> >>>    signature is a hash followed by a signature algorithm (e.g., RSA
> >>>    with SHA-256). I've seen a couple of drafts that tried to say an
> >>>    HMAC (e.g., HMAC-SHA256) was a digital signature; one called it a
> >>>    symmetric key based digital signature algorithm (note this phrase
> >>>    didn't get through the IESG).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> An HMAC is not a digital signature, but the spec definitely needs to
> >>> be able to cover MAC based authentication.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I know that public key is getting easier as far as computation goes.
> >>> But for many applications the non-repudiation you get in digital
> >>> signatures is actually undesirable.
> >>>
> >>> There are interesting tricks you can do with symmetric crypto that are
> >>> much harder to do in public key and end up with some scheme that only
> >>> 50 academics in the world can follow and has a security proof that
> >>> rest on rather esoteric assumptions.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> woes mailing list
> >>> woes@ietf.org <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > woes mailing list
> > woes@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
>
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/