I would do this by including an IANA considerations section that states you are updating the expert review instructions for a registry. They will then include that in the list of references for the registry itself.
Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:49 PM > To: Jim Schaad; 'Adam W. Montville'; 'The IESG'; [email protected]; > draft-ietf-jose- > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05 > > The registration instructions don't appear to be stored with the registry at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml. The closest there is there > is > the Reference field, which specifies [RFC7515], which I assume is how the > designated experts are expected to retrieve the instructions. > > Does anyone on the thread know if it's possible to add a copy of the > registration > instructions in the registry itself? If so, then we'd have a mechanism by > which > we could update them, as Jim suggested. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:36 PM > To: Mike Jones; 'Adam W. Montville'; 'The IESG'; [email protected]; > draft-ietf-jose- > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:25 PM > > To: Adam W. Montville; The IESG; [email protected]; draft-ietf-jose-jwk- > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05 > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Thanks for the secdir review. > > > > > From: Adam W. Montville [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:46 AM > > > To: The IESG; [email protected]; > > > [email protected] > > > Subject: sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05 > > > > > Hi, > > > > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > > > ongoing > > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area > > directors. > > Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like > > any other last call comments. > > > > > > I believe the document is ready with (potential) issues. The “with > > > issues” might > > be due to ignorance on my part. The draft does a very good job of > > explaining the canonical form of a JSON Web Key that can be used for > > establishing a thumbprint under varying circumstances, complete with > > what I found to be helpful examples. > > > > > > The primary issue I have is that it’s unclear how relying parties > > > are going to > > know which hash algorithm has been used. The examples use SHA-256, > > but I’m not seeing where SHA-256 might be specified as a MUST or even a > SHOULD. > > Moreover, the example output ultimately shows only the Base-64 > > encoding of the resulting hash, which says nothing about the algorithm > > used to identify a key. > > > > Earlier drafts had included fields whose names were intended to > > communicate the information about the hash function used - see the > > "jkt" field definitions in > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-01#section-4 > > - but several working group reviewers suggested that these fields were > > unnecessary and that the typical usage would be as "kid" (key ID) > > field values. With that removal, it falls onto the application to > > specify the hash algorithm for its particular usage. > > > > This isn't as bad as you might think, however, because typically the > > consumer of the "kid" doesn't need to know the algorithm because it > > won't be reproducing the computation. It just relies on the fact that > > a unique key ID value was generated for the key and compares "kid" > > values as opaque strings to find the appropriate key. In this usage, > > the producer of the key is the only party that needs to know the hash > algorithm that it is using. I hope this helps. > > > > > Additionally, in Section 4, “JSON and Unicode Considerations” some > > > “should”s > > are used, but I’m not reading them as SHOULDs. Should they be > > SHOULDs? For example, the start of the third paragraph in that > > section: “if new JWK members are defined that use non-ASCII member > > names, their definitions should specify the exact Unicode code point > > sequences used to represent them.” It’s not clear to me whether this > > is a strong statement or just a recommendation - it seems that this > > draft could help the future by making stronger statements to encourage > > future > interoperability. > > > > For the other JOSE specifications, our chair Jim Schaad took the > > position that RFC 2119 keywords should be reserved for testable > > protocol behaviors and that other uses of the English word "should" > > should not use "SHOULD". The authors followed that convention in this > > document. I do understand that other authors and working groups have > > taken different positions in this regard. If there are particular > > uses that you still feel should be changed to use RFC 2119 keywords, please > call them out. > > If we really wanted to make sure that the recommendation was followed, then > it would make sense to adjust the IANA reviewers instructions for the > registry. > Putting a SHOULD or a MUST in this document would not have any effect since it > does not define a protocol and might not be seen by anybody defining a new > header field. > > Jim > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Adam > > > > Thanks again! > > -- Mike > _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
