1b. Have “spi” as a separate (optional) spec. Change its definition so it does not change the crypto. For instance, the header that is part of the integrity check is the header with the full alg ids, and key ids — not the header with just the “spi” value. Otherwise “spi” is changing the crypto properties, not just saving bytes.
-- James Manger From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue Sent: Friday, 12 April 2013 9:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field? Issue #8 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/8 proposes adding an “spi” (security parameters index) header parameter to the JWS and JWE specifications. This modification to the JOSE formats would allow for signaling that pre-negotiated cryptographic parameters are being used, rather than including those parameters in the JWS or JWE header. This proposal has been written up as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-spi-00. Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue? 1. Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations. 2. Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications as a mandatory feature. 3. Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications as an optional feature. 4. Another resolution (please specify in detail). 0. I need more information to decide. Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th or earlier.
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
