On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Logan Widick <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the follow-on (#398) includes the Accept header in error responses > (to requests with unacceptable serializations). > Indeed it does! > Also, there may need to be another follow-on regarding how to serialize > "nested" JWS instances (like the externalAccountBinding and the inner JWS > for a key change). > If you have suggestions here, a PR would be welcome. TBH, this issue kind of makes me want to reverse course and say "all flattened JSON", but I get the sense that other folks disagree? --Richard > > Logan > > > On Mar 2, 2018 9:47 AM, "Felipe Gasper" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could there be some way of using a header like “Accept” for a server to > indicate whether it supports jose, jose+json, or both? > > -F > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > I merged #395 last night (thanks, Logan!). While I was reviewing that, > I noticed that we need to cover the case where the client sends an encoding > that the server doesn't understand. So I've posted a follow-on that adds > an error code and requires its usage. LMK if you have any objections, > otherwise I'll merge before submission on Monday. > > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/398 > > > > Thanks, > > --Richard > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Logan Widick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I've created a new pull request (https://github.com/ietf-wg-ac > me/acme/pull/395) to partially address the lack of serialization format > specification. This pull request requires use of the Content-Type HTTP > header to indicate the serialization format of the outermost JWS. The pull > request also includes restrictions on the serializations (no detached > payload, no unencoded payload, no unprotected header, etc.). In addition, > the pull request bans multiple signatures, regardless of the serialization > used. The use of the Content-Type header, and the list of currently > possible serializations, is mentioned in its own subsection of "Message > Transport". > > > > The pull request does not contain advice on how to convert different > serialization formats before and/or after use with a pre-existing JWS > library. I have started on a separate conversion guide ( > https://github.com/uhhhh2/jwe-jws-serialization-conversion-guide) for > that purpose. > > > > The pull request does not specify how a "nested" JWS should be > serialized. However, I have included an outline of one possible approach to > this in the pull request's description. > > > > Please let me know what you think about the pull request ( > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/395), and the separate > conversion guide (https://github.com/uhhhh2/jwe > -jws-serialization-conversion-guide) > > > > Logan > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Logan Widick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Last night, I briefly surveyed the listings of JWT implementations on > jwt.io. I could find only a small handful that appeared to support all > serializations, and even fewer that appeared to give programmers control > over what serialization was produced. Thus, assuming jwt.io is a > sufficiently accurate and comprehensive listing of implementations of all > and/or part of the JOSE specs, the developers of many ACME client and > server implementations may find themselves needing to convert between > serializations before and/or after using JOSE libraries. Such conversion > processes, if needed, should be well-documented somewhere. > > > > I've started on a very rough draft of a possible JWS and JWE > serialization conversion guide at https://github.com/uhhhh2/jwe- > jws-serialization-conversion-guide. I made the conversion guide draft by > copying a few items from the ACME GitHub repository (the Markdown file, the > makefile, and the .gitignore), replacing the text from the Markdown file, > and renaming the Markdown file. I designed the conversion guide draft to be > non-ACME specific, so I've tried to include things like unencoded JWS > payloads, JWEs, multiple signatures, detached payloads, etc. If you have > any changes or suggestions, please let me know. > > > > Logan > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Jörn Heissler < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:03:55 -0600, Logan Widick wrote: > > > What do you think of the following: > > > > > Content type application/jose+json: MUST be supported. If used, the JWS > > > will need to be in the Flattened or General serialization. Flattened > MUST > > > be supported; General MAY be supported. > > > > > Content type application/jose: MAY be supported. If used, the JWS MUST > use > > > the Compact serialization. Or should this content type not be allowed? > > > > Agreed. I wouldn't disallow "compact". And it could be clarified: > > > > The server SHOULD use the "Content-Type" HTTP header as an indication > > for the request format. > > > > > JWS Unprotected Header: Not currently used in ACME. Should this be > banned > > > in ACME? > > > > I don't see much sense in those. But some client implementations might > > automatically add an unprotected header like e.g. "cty". > > Maybe with a "SHOULD NOT"? > > > > > Multiple signatures: MAY be supported. > > > > > Should messages signed by both MAC keys and private keys be allowed? > > > > This is already forbidden. > > > > > What about Key IDs not issued by the CA? > > > Or are multiple signatures more trouble than they're worth to the > point of > > > banning them entirely? > > > > > > Multiple signatures on messages that need to be signed by account key: > At > > > least one signature MUST be from the account key > > > > > > Multiple signatures on revokeCert: Should this be allowed? > > > > > > Multiple signatures on externalAccountBinding field of newAccount: > Should > > > it be possible to bind to multiple pre-existing accounts? Or should > this > > > not be allowed? > > > > > > Multiple signatures on newAccount: Not allowed? > > > > > > Multiple signatures on keyChange: Not allowed for outer or inner JWS? > > > > I see no use case. All the authentication is based on accounts and those > > have exactly one keypair. Having multiple signatures would equal using > > multiple accounts at the same time. That makes no sense to me. > > Client libs would probably not generate multiple signatures > > automatically. > > Multiple signatures should be banned in my opinion. > > > > > JWS Unencoded Payload Option (RFC 7797): Not allowed? > > > > Yep, they would make things very complicated. > > > > > Conversion guide between the different JWS serialization formats: Is it > > > completely safe to assume that any and all programmers given the JWS > RFC, > > > pre-existing JWS implementations with sufficient documentation, and > > > pre-existing JSON libraries with sufficient documentation could figure > out > > > how to convert the serialization formats as needed? > > > > Why, yes! Of course every programmer can do that! ;-) > > > > > Or is the conversion > > > guide necessary? If the guide is necessary, then include a reference > to a > > > separate new or pre-existing conversion guide. If the guide is > necessary, > > > and there is no pre-existing conversion guide, how should the new > > > conversion guide be published? Should the new conversion guide be > > > ACME-specific, or more general (possibly with coverage of JWE as well > as > > > JWS features not utilized in ACME)? > > > > It's not necessary, *most* programmers can figure it out. But it would > > doubtlessly be helpful. E.g. I didn't consider the possibility to do > > this conversion in an ACME implementation before/after using a > preexisting > > JOSE lib. > > If such a guide were to be published, it should not be ACME-specific. > > > > > > Cheers > > Jörn > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
