Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 20:34 UTC
Return-Path: <turners@ieca.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 7DB2321F8A7D for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.255
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TgXXeOGTHTG6 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm14.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm14.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC41E21F8A7B for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.94.237.194] by nm14.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 20:34:34 -0000
Received: from [98.139.221.61] by tm5.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 20:34:34 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp102.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 20:34:34 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 129609.45354.bm@smtp102.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: du7ubskVM1kt1XDDNsFaiI3HdMMHzoW1saegVGCchyDkWq1 rUDz8l_BkZ5shpUggrGhQsY11fM8Wl767e44GKm6zTRpLZkPEIaG3ZVlvQy6 9THnF9p6Cvged4j1p7yzVN4Fvz1WbJmlwX31etGsC133TYjsiOKYJzUOj7ac BMhmaa0vXI9VCjOo9dLXRwVFAFWa490ZUh9qtq104zAcstptELEG7.PpVxb5 XDxIEV8xHhoAilAHalYfwcmQ3cgBXGaqEkOuprvFYfp85tbTFq1lJE6kPT7y zKyYfIHz5D6RXsWLeS2aQNfruP7SGmKbVoUpc39FzFdP_U9ZA7M3O801R12h 6FKq1Zv1d5lhNvhFmtLaoox8RKwTF51D.K9DjhVHOlqsBos27xaO_YEY7b33 eyiMShatJgb_w9nvjDjp7OggjGYWPTA--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ
Received: from thunderfish.westell.com (turners@96.231.124.70 with plain) by smtp102.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 Aug 2011 13:34:33 -0700 PDT
Message-ID: <4E3C53D8.3040308@ieca.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:34:32 -0400
From: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
References: <6663f860-9de7-4960-8e7b-1c2d23142009@default> <4E3C3A35.70408@ieca.com> <CAMm+LwgVQP00pgKkwfgT9+dzbL9mw9Ws9=34N_3togA3kP9CUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgVQP00pgKkwfgT9+dzbL9mw9Ws9=34N_3togA3kP9CUw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: woes@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:34:16 -0000
On 8/5/11 3:04 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Actually, I suspect that with AES in hand and having good MAC modes > specified we might well want to use one of those in preference to the > traditional HMAC. > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com > <mailto:turners@ieca.com>> wrote: > > On 8/4/11 4:41 PM, Hal Lockhart wrote: > > +1 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org > <mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>] > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:03 PM > To: Eric Rescorla > Cc: woes@ietf.org <mailto:woes@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > IMO, symmetric integrity protection is a useful > primitive, and it's > already part of the > JWT spec. I think all that's required here in the > charter is to > wordsmith it to separate > out symmetric from asymmetric integrity algorithms, > > > Current: > 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. > > It sounds like you would prefer something like: > 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply > integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) > JSON data structures. This integrity protection can be > achieved with both symmetric and asymmetric algorithms. > > Is that right? > > > I'm liking what Paul B. suggested but tweaked ever so slightly: > > 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to ensure the integrity > and/or authenticity of data, including (but not limited to) JSON > data structures. HMAC-based (RFC 2104) and Asymmetric cryptographic > algorithms both need to be supported. > > I'd like to not just call out integrity - and we should just call > out the HMAC-based algs because that's what folks really want to use > (or have I gotten this wrong?). > > Any violent objections to this? Right after I sent this I remembered AES-CMAC. Precise enough to say: MAC-based (e.g., HMAC-SHA256, AES-CMAC) and Asymmetric cryptographic algorithms both need to be supported. spt
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- [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] 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