Nice straw man, Mike :) Nobody is arguing that cases with out-of-band negotiation are not important. The question is how they should be supported.
What ISSUE-9 and ISSUE-15 are about is saying that the default assumption should be that all communication is via JW* headers. Otherwise, we're not designing a stand-alone protocol, we're designing an adjunct to something else, and we should do it in that WG. That default assumption means that you have to have certain contraints, like a key indicator being REQUIRED. The SPI header is then the "get out of jail free card", releasing you from those constraints. Let's design a real protocol first, then let people cheat. --Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > Reading this question, I believe that there’s a possibility for the > question to be misinterpreted, since the sense of the question in the > subject is opposite of the sense of the question in the body. I believe > that the intent of 1 and 2 were as follows:**** > > ** ** > > 1. Yes – Use cases where key information is exchanged by means other than > the JWS and JWE headers ARE important.**** > > 2. No – Use cases where key information is exchanged by means other than > the JWS and JWE headers ARE NOT important.**** > > ** ** > > Maybe people could reply with 1 and 2 as above, so that their answers to > the question of whether these use cases are important are not are > unambiguous.**** > > ** ** > > -- Mike**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Karen O'Donoghue > *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 5:00 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #15: Should at > least on key indicator be mandatory**** > > ** ** > > Issue #15 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/15. suggests > requiring that a key indicator, such as a “kid” field, be required in all > JWS and JWE headers. Are use cases where key information is exchanged by > means other than the JWS or JWE headers important? **** > > Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?**** > > 1. Yes.**** > > 2. No. **** > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
