[Popping out to a separate thread, since we're into specifics here]
Mike:
I asked earlier for an example of an application that that needs "typ",
noting that JWT doesn't count because it can provide that via two other
channels ("cty" and OAuth). Could you provide one?
Thanks,
--Richard
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote:
> I agree that we should provide some additional clarification on the
> intended purpose for the “typ” and “cty” parameters. We just did provide
> substantial additional clarification for “crit” in -11, based on the
> working group decisions at the interim meeting. Are there other specific
> things that you’d suggest that we clarify, Dick?****
>
> ** **
>
> -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Dick Hardt
> *Sent:* Friday, June 07, 2013 7:33 AM
> *To:* Richard Barnes
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] What are we doing here?****
>
> ** **
>
> MIke: I don't find your response very useful for understanding the
> question Richard proposed. I find the spec confusing as to what I am
> supposed to do when as an implementer. It seems that it is clear to all the
> people associated with OpenID Connect, but without that context, it is
> confusing, and frankly, some of the parameters seem like hacks to me.
> Perhaps some additional clarification on what the parameters are intended
> for would assist?****
>
> ** **
>
> -- Dick****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:****
>
> Of course, motherhood, apple pie, etc. :)****
>
> ** **
>
> The question is what we're trying to help developers do. The developers I
> talk to want a simple tool to do crypto stuff, full stop. They don't want
> semantic validation, critical fields, etc. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The adoption you're pointing to is not really relevant to the process
> here. The deployed implementations you're talking about are all in a
> limited space, covering one use case. And the current solution comes with
> baggage for that use case that adds complexity for everyone else. If you
> wanted to address that one use case, you should have chartered for that,
> not general signing and encryption.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nonetheless, on timing, I agree that I'm getting a little bored with
> fighting over this :) I'm working on a review of -11 that tries to package
> up all the remaining comments such that they can get resolved and we can
> move on with life.****
>
> ** **
>
> --Richard****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>
> wrote:****
>
> Excellent question, Richard, because it gets to the heart of why the JOSE
> specs are already highly successful and widely adopted.****
>
> ****
>
> - We are building useful tools that solve real problems for developers.*
> ***
>
> - We are practically demonstrating the value of rough consensus and
> running code.****
>
> - We are making simple things simple.****
>
> - We are making complex things possible, when necessary (but not at the
> expense of keeping simple things simple).****
>
> - We are developing specs with an explicit goal of enabling ubiquitous
> adoption.****
>
> - We are developing specs guided by practical engineering tradeoffs to
> enable commonly useful functionality in a straightforward manner.****
>
> ****
>
> The level of adoption, with dozens of deployed implementations, is
> compelling evidence that we’ve already achieved the goals above. It’s time
> to “ship it”, as making the JOSE specs actual standards will only increase
> their adoption and value to the industry.****
>
> ****
>
> That’s what we’re doing here.****
>
> ****
>
> -- Mike****
>
> ****
>
> P.S. I would be careful reasoning from the premise of “The perfect
> protocol is one from which nothing can be removed”. By that logic, the
> perfect specification is the null specification, which leaves all
> possibilities open, and solves no actual problems. ;-)****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Richard Barnes
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 2:44 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [jose] What are we doing here?****
>
> ****
>
> The conversation about "typ" has brought us back to a familiar question
> for this working group -- what are we trying to do here?****
>
> ****
>
> The current document is ambiguous on this topic. On the one hand, it
> mostly covers the crypto bases, with things like "alg" and "enc". On the
> other hand, it mixes in application design concepts like "typ" and "crit".
> The result is a spec that's ambiguous in purpose and complex. If I'm
> building an application with this, how do I decide what goes in the "crit"
> field, or what values to use for "typ"? ****
>
> The charter for this working group is not ambiguous on this topic. This
> group is chartered to do signing and encryption. The JOSE formats should
> carry the parameters needed to perform those operations. Anything else is
> extraneous, and in the spirit of "The perfect protocol is one from which
> nothing can be removed", should be removed.****
>
> ****
>
> Now, I'm not going to be a hard-liner on this. I won't complain about
> "zip" and "cty", since they are clearly defined and have clear use cases.
> But "crit" and "typ" are so ambiguous and so little supported by use
> cases*, that they really should go.****
>
> ****
>
> </rant>****
>
> ****
>
> --Richard****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> -- Dick ****
>
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
