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

On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:03 -0400, Sean Turner 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).

I don't agree. I believe we should be able to use this useful plumbing
to ensure integrity/authenticity without having to rely exclusively on
public key cryptography.

> > 2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures.
> >
> > 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public keys as JSON-structured objects.
> >
> > 4) A Standards Track document specifying mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the other three documents.
> 
> I think this addition is good.  In the past we've bundled the MTI 
> algorithms with the protocol and then reving the MTI algorithms caused 
> unnecessary churn on the protocol even if the protocol is stable.
> 
> I also think this draft need not only include MTI algorithms, but the 
> draft definitely needs to say which ones are the MTI algorithms.
> 
> > The working group may decide to address one or more of these goals in a single document, in which case the concrete milestones for signing/encryption below will both be satisfied by the single document.
> >
> > Goals and Milestones
> > --------------------
> >
> > Aug 2011    Submit JSON object signing document as a WG item.
> >
> > Aug 2011    Submit JSON object encryption document as a WG item.
> >
> > Aug 2011    Submit JSON key format document as a WG item.
> >
> > Aug 2011    Submit JSON algoritm document as a WG item.
> >
> > Jan 2012    Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object signing document.
> >
> > Jan 2012    Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object encryption document.
> >
> > Jan 2012    Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document.
> >
> > Jan 2012    Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document.
> >
> > Feb 2012    Submit JSON object signing document to IESG for consideration as
> > Standards Track document.
> >
> > Feb 2012    Submit JSON object encryption document to IESG for consideration
> > as Standards Track document.
> >
> > Feb 2012    Submit JSON key format document to IESG for consideration
> > as Standards Track document.
> >
> > Feb 2012    Submit JSON algorithm document to IESG for consideration
> > as Standards Track document.
> 
> The dates are little ambitious.  Just based on the process, I doubt this 
> can be charter by the end of August.  I'd swap Aug->Oct, Jan->Mar, and 
> leave Feb as-is.

I agree, though IMO the sooner we can get strawman drafts out to start
taking shots at, the better.

> spt
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes