Re: [jose] IANA Registration issue

Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:50:22 -0800

I'm fine with this, but I defer to Jim given that he raised the initial issue. 

Karen

On 1/27/15, 5:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mike Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:

Assuming we’re going to make this change to have the registry entries refer
to the actual section numbers where the algorithms are defined, rather than
overview sections, addressing the issue that Jim pointed out, to make like
easier for the RFC Editor, I applied the changes to the attached document.
Jim, Karen, or Kathleen – are we good to send this to the RFC editor, before
they start their actual editing?  The diffs are below.

I'm fine with the change if Jim and Karen agree.

I went through the new version of the draft attached to verify that
each of the new references does point back to the correct section as a
second set of eyes (hoping to reduce future errata) and did not find
any errors.

Thanks,
Kathleen




                                                             -- Mike



1977c1977

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.2 of [[ this document ]]

1985c1985

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.2 of [[ this document ]]

1993c1993

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.2 of [[ this document ]]

2001c2001

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.3 of [[ this document ]]

2009c2009

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.3 of [[ this document ]]

2027c2027

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.3 of [[ this document ]]

2035c2035

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.4 of [[ this document ]]

2043c2043

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.4 of [[ this document ]]

2051c2051

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.4 of [[ this document ]]

2060c2060

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.5 of [[ this document ]]

2079c2079

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.5 of [[ this document ]]

2088c2088

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.5 of [[ this document ]]

2096c2096

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.6 of [[ this document ]]

2104c2104

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.2 of [[ this document ]]

2112c2112

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.3 of [[ this document ]]

2121c2121

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.3 of [[ this document ]]

2139c2139

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.4 of [[ this document ]]

2147c2147

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.4 of [[ this document ]]

2155c2155

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.4 of [[ this document ]]

2163c2163

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.5 of [[ this document ]]

2171c2171

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.6 of [[ this document ]]

2190c2190

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.6 of [[ this document ]]

2199c2199

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.6 of [[ this document ]]

2208c2208

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 4.6 of [[ this document ]]

2277c2277

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.2 of [[ this document ]]

2286c2286

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.2 of [[ this document ]]

2305c2305

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.2 of [[ this document ]]

2313c2313

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.3 of [[ this document ]]

2321c2321

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.3 of [[ this document ]]

2329c2329

<    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of [[ this document ]]

---


    o  Specification Document(s): Section 5.3 of [[ this document ]]



From: John Bradley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 3:45 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Jim Schaad; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] IANA Registration issue



I am OK with that.



On Jan 25, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:



I agree that there’s an inconsistency that we should address, but I’d
actually suggest a different change.  Sections 3.1 and 4.1 are overview
sections just listing the algorithm identifiers, whereas sections 3.2-3.6
and 4.2-4.8 define the actual algorithms.  If we make a change, I’d suggest
that the registrations refer to the actual section defining the algorithm
(as is already done for A*GCMKW and PBES2-*).  Specifically, I’d have HS*
refer to section 3.2, RS* to 3.3, ES* to 3.4, RSA1_5 to 4.2, RSA-OAEP* to
4.3, etc.  If people agree with this change, which I believe would make the
section references in the registry more useful, I can work with IANA and the
RFC Editor to make the corrections.



Thanks for looking at the details, Jim.



                                                             -- Mike



From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [jose] IANA Registration issue



In going through the IANA registrations for the
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms document, I found something that I had
missed the last time that I reviewed the documents and has probably been
there for some time.



All of the signing algorithms point to section 3.1 for the reference column.

All of the key management functions until A128GCMKW point to section 4.1 for
the reference column

The rest of the key management functions point to sections 4.7 or 4.8.

All of the content encryption algorithms point to section 4.1 for the
reference column.



Should we request a change to make this consistent and point  A*GCMKW and
PBSE2-* to point to section 4.1 in the reference column and request an
editor’s note to this effect?





Jim



_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose







_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to