In some recent discussions, it seems that this might be useful for some of the POP use cases.
At least the idea of a detached body. The specifics of the proposal need to be reviewed. Also as a FYI I may have a new JWA EC alg that I have been discussing with NIST that may need to have a spec to get registered. We weren’t able to get a doc together before Prague (I am trying not to do it unless it is really needed). This may or may not influence wanting to keep the WG around. John B. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry to chime in so late. I have been completely under water for sometime > now. > > Like Phil, I do see that draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options sort of > thing can be very useful, though I may want to have slightly different way of > encoding the things. Being able to do detached signature is quite attractive. > > Best, > > Nat > > 2015-07-10 2:37 GMT+09:00 Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > Hi, > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> About >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00>, >> I’ll add that this addresses the requests make by Jim Schaad and Richard >> Barnes in JOSE Issues #26 “Allow for signature payload to not be base64 >> encoded” and #23 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23 >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23> “Make crypto independent >> of binary encoding (base64)”. >> >> >> >> About >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01 >> >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01>, >> I’ll add that this addresses the request made by Jim Schaad in JOSE Issue >> #2 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/2 >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/2> “No key management for >> MAC”. >> >> >> >> Also, there’s a highly relevant discussion about key management for MACs >> going on in the COSE working group. See the thread “[Cose] Key management >> for MACs (was Re: Review of draft-schaad-cose-msg-01)” – especially >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/aUehU6O7Ui8CXcGxy3TquZOxWH4 >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/aUehU6O7Ui8CXcGxy3TquZOxWH4> >> andhttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ouOIdAOe2P-W8BjGLJ7BNvvRr10 >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ouOIdAOe2P-W8BjGLJ7BNvvRr10>. >> >> >> >> One could take the view that our decision on the JOSE key management draft >> should be informed by the related decision in COSE. Specifically, that if >> COSE decides to support key management for MACs, the same reasoning likely >> should apply to our decision on whether to define a standard mechanism for >> supporting key management for MACs in JOSE. >> >> >> > Key management is explicitly out-of-scope for COSE as stated in the charter. > The discussion referenced had this point at the close of that discussion. > > I'm not seeing much support for these drafts moving forward in JOSE. I'm > also not seeing enough to justify standards track and AD sponsored. If you > think these are important to have move forward in the WG or as standards > track, please say so soon. They can still go forward through the Independent > submission process through the ISE. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > >> -- Mike >> >> >> >> From: jose [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue >> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:38 AM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts >> >> >> >> Folks, >> >> >> >> With the thumbprint draft progressing through the process, we have two >> remaining individual drafts to decide what to do with. The options include: >> 1) adopt as working group drafts; 2) ask for AD sponsorship of individual >> drafts; or 3) recommend that they not be published. Please express your >> thoughts on what we should do with these drafts. Jim, Kathleen, and I would >> like to make a decision in the Prague timeframe, so please respond by 15 >> July. >> >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.txt >> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.txt> >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt >> >> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Karen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose> > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose> > > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ <http://nat.sakimura.org/> > @_nat_en > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
