On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Prabath Siriwardena <[email protected]> wrote:
> I intend to review both the drafts and will post the results here in next > couple of works. .. > works --> weeks > > Thanks & regards, > -Prabath > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Kathleen Moriarty < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> It's good too see that a few people do support these drafts. Will each >> of you be sending reviews and comments to the list shortly on these >> drafts? If the chairs think it's reasonable to accept the drafts, they >> will also need to know there will be active support. >> >> Thanks, >> Kathleen >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Edmund Jay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> >> *To:* Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Mike Jones <[email protected]>; Karen O'Donoghue < >> [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:32 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts >> >> 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]>: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> About >> 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 “Make >> crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)”. >> >> About >> 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 “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 >> and >> 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] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Karen O'Donoghue >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:38 AM >> *To:* [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-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt >> >> Thanks, >> Karen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Prabath > > Twitter : @prabath > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/prabathsiriwardena > > Mobile : +1 650 625 7950 > > http://blog.facilelogin.com > http://blog.api-security.org > -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Twitter : @prabath LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/prabathsiriwardena Mobile : +1 650 625 7950 http://blog.facilelogin.com http://blog.api-security.org
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
