Also: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6839
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > Because the syntax is completely different. One is period-separated > base64url encoded fields. The other is JSON.**** > > ** ** > > -- Mike*** > * > > ** ** > > *From:* Jim Schaad [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 AM > *To:* Mike Jones; 'Matt Miller (mamille2)'; 'Richard Barnes' > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [jose] Should we keep or remove the JOSE JWS and JWE MIME > types?**** > > ** ** > > I have a question, why is there both an application/jose and and > application/jose+json. Why not have just one of them?**** > > ** ** > > Jim**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Mike Jones > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:47 AM > *To:* Matt Miller (mamille2); Richard Barnes > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [jose] Should we keep or remove the JOSE JWS and JWE MIME > types?**** > > ** ** > > Editorially, if we do decide to add application/jose and > application/jose+json MIME types, I would register them in > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature, just like other registry content shared > between JWS and JWE, such as the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header > Parameters > Registry<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-11#page-18> > .**** > > ** ** > > -- Mike**** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Miller (mamille2) [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:33 AM > To: Richard Barnes > Cc: Mike Jones; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] Should we keep or remove the JOSE JWS and JWE MIME > types?**** > > ** ** > > I just want to say that I think having a media type is important and > useful. It might not be important and useful for JWT or OAuth or > OpenID-Connect, but I can think of many applications that would make use of > them if at all possible.**** > > ** ** > > I personally don't care if it's a generic media type or individual > application/jwe and application/jws. However, I think a generic media type > would require a separate document; trying to fit this into the one shared > document (JWA) seems wrong.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > - m&m**** > > ** ** > > Matt Miller < [email protected] >**** > > Cisco Systems, Inc.**** > > ** ** > > PS: I've found +json useful for other things, because I do have > applications that present in different formats (right now that's usually > +xml). While there's not a simple corollary with XML-based concepts, I > think there will be corollaries in the future (e.g., CBOR). Having them > now means we're not painted into a corner if (when) we look at JOSE2 and > support for binary representations.**** > > ** ** > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]>**** > > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > > That algorithm is part of the story, but it's incomplete. What we need > is**** > > > an algorithm that starts with an arbitrary octet string and sorts by**** > > > JWS/JWE and serialization. An outline of the flow chart:**** > > > **** > > > 1. If content parses as valid JSON**** > > > 1.*. Parse JSON**** > > > 1.1. Iontains a "ciphertext" field -> JWE + JSON**** > > > 1.2. Contains a "payload" field -> JWS + JSON**** > > > 1.3. Else fail**** > > > 2. Else if content matches the regex "^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]*$"**** > > > 2.*. Split on "."**** > > > 2.1. If 5 components -> JWE + compact**** > > > 2.2. If 3 components -> JWS + compact**** > > > 2.3. Else fail**** > > > 3. Else fail**** > > > **** > > > There's also the question of which document this goes in. It would be a > **** > > > natural thing for a combined JWS+JWE document, but we don't have one of* > *** > > > those :(**** > > > **** > > > **** > > > **** > > > **** > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Mike Jones < > [email protected]>wrote:**** > > > **** > > >> There is a defined algorithm to distinguish between the JWS and JWE**** > > >> objects in the third paragraph of**** > > >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-11#section-4 > **** > > >> .******** > > >> **** > > >> ** ****** > > >> **** > > >> -- Mike***** > *** > > >> **** > > >> ** ****** > > >> **** > > >> *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>]**** > > >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:15 AM**** > > >> *To:* Mike Jones**** > > >> *Cc:* [email protected]**** > > >> **** > > >> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Should we keep or remove the JOSE JWS and JWE MIME > **** > > >> types?******** > > >> **** > > >> ** ****** > > >> **** > > >> Multiplexing JWE and JWS under a single JOSE media type only makes sense > **** > > >> if there's a defined algorithm to demux them. So if you want to do > this,**** > > >> you would need to write down the algorithm.******** > > >> **** > > >> ** ****** > > >> **** > > >> Personally, it seems simpler and clearer to me to just have the four*** > * > > >> current types, so that you know which type of object you're dealing > with,**** > > >> and in what serialization, without having to do content sniffing.****** > ** > > >> **** > > >> ** ****** > > >> **** > > >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Mike Jones < > [email protected]>**** > > >> wrote:******** > > >> **** > > >> The JWS and JWE documents currently define these MIME types for the**** > > >> convenience of applications that may want to use them:******** > > >> **** > > >> application/jws******** > > >> **** > > >> application/jws+json******** > > >> **** > > >> application/jwe******** > > >> **** > > >> application/jwe+json******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> That being said, I’m not aware of any uses of these by applications at* > *** > > >> present. Thus, I think that makes it fair game to ask whether we want > to**** > > >> keep them or remove them – in which case, if applications ever needed > them,**** > > >> they could define them later.******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> Another dimension of this question for JWS and JWE is that it’s not > clear**** > > >> that the four types application/jws, application/jws+json, > application/jwe,**** > > >> and application/jwe+json are even the right ones. It might be more > useful**** > > >> to have generic application/jose and application/jose+json types, which > **** > > >> could hold either JWS or JWE objects respectively using the compact or > JSON**** > > >> serializations (although I’m not advocating adding them at this > time).******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> Having different JWS versus JWE MIME types apparently did contribute to > at**** > > >> least Dick’s confusion about the purpose of the “typ” field, so deleting > **** > > >> them could help eliminate this possibility of confusion in the future.* > *** > > >> Thus, I’m increasingly convinced we should get rid of the JWS and JWE > types**** > > >> and leave it up to applications to define the types they need, when they > **** > > >> need them.******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> Do people have use cases for these four MIME types now or should we > leave**** > > >> them to future specs to define, if needed?******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> -- > Mike******* > > >> ***** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> P.S. For completeness, I’ll add that the JWK document also defines > these**** > > >> MIME types:******** > > >> **** > > >> application/jwk+json******** > > >> **** > > >> application/jwk-set+json******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> There are already clear use cases for these types, so I’m not advocating > **** > > >> deleting them, but wanted to call that out explicitly. For instance, > when**** > > >> retrieving a JWK Set document referenced by a “jku” header parameter, I > **** > > >> believe that the result should use the application/jwk-set+json type. > (In**** > > >> fact, I’ll add this to the specs, unless there are any objections.)**** > > >> Likewise, draft-miller-jose-jwe-protected-jwk-02 already uses**** > > >> application/jwk+json. Both could also be as “cty” values when > encrypting**** > > >> JWKs and JWK Sets, in contexts where that that would be useful.******** > > >> **** > > >> ******** > > >> **** > > >> **** > > >> _______________________________________________**** > > >> jose mailing list**** > > >> [email protected]**** > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose******** > > >> **** > > >> ** ****** > > >> **** > > > _______________________________________________**** > > > jose mailing list**** > > > [email protected]**** > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose**** > > ** ** >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
