From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Massimiliano Pala Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [jose] Issues with the WG documents Hello Jose WG, I just review the WG document in the effort of understanding the features that are being addressed and the inter-WG possible interoperability capabilities and / or issues. I have to apologize for not being able to participate to the WG efforts before. Unfortunately, it seems (IMHO) that much of the previous work that has been done in the security area, most noticeable by the PKIX WG, has been practically ignored. In particular (and please forget me if I am raising points that have already been addressed in the past - if so, please provide me with references so that I can understand these choices), here's the overall general issues that I found throughout the documents: * Duplication of Registration for Algorithm Identifiers (cross-application). This is particularly bad because the use of text identifiers (even if it is specified that they should be unique), might be "overloaded" in their usage because of the chosen names. Those identifiers (as today written in the docs) are similar to the description, rather than IDs * Format-Dependent content protection - This seems to be an over-engineering of the format where not needed - i.e., content is content, not JSON without spaces on one line content. * Algorithm Agility - I find it odd that, with all the work that has been done in the past for moving from specifying algorithm to providing specs for extensible algorithms field has been ignored (e.g., fixed SHA-1 and SHA-256 specification for certificate identifiers * Interoperability with PKIX formats. No effort, AFAIK, has been done (at least reflected in the documents) about format translation from the structures used from the PKIX group into JSON - that would provide a more useful tool for integrating JSON into existing cryptographic libraries (ease of deployment and format interoperability) This work would be out of scope for the JOSE working group. The documents more closely correspond to those found in the CMS work from the S/MIME working group than anything found in PKIX. Jim Last, I found it very weird the following notation: ASCII(BASE64(.)) since the BASE64 is an ASCII representation, what does the ASCII() specs mean in this case and why it is needed? Best Regards, Dr. Pala
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
