Other than it being one more thing for us to do as an RFC Editor’s note, is
there a reason not to include the sentence? I’m concerned that if we don’t,
people preparing registrations may become confused, using existing
registrations as their guide for preparing new ones, and because the field
won’t be present there, some will leave it out of their registration requests
by mistake, thinking it’s not needed. I think it will be more transparent and
less confusing for all if we say explicitly that the field isn’t included in
the registry.
-- Mike
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 3:32 PM
To: Mike Jones; 'Kathleen Moriarty'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [jose] Registration change for IANA?
I don’t believe that there is any need for a textual change for this. Just a
request to IANA. Consider that all of the fields that are not in the media
types table.
Jim
From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 3:11 PM
To: Kathleen Moriarty; Jim Schaad
Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [jose] Registration change for IANA?
I’m OK with this suggestion. I assume that we’d also want to add a sentence in
the registration instructions for the field “Algorithm Analysis Documents(s):”
saying something like this: “This field is provided for use by the designated
experts but not included in the resulting registration”, which we’d add via an
editor’s note at this point. I would make it the next-to-last sentence in the
last paragraph of
7.1.1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-40#section-7.1.1>.
Does that wording sound right to you, Jim and Kathleen?
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:57 AM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [jose] Registration change for IANA?
Hi Jim,
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:01 PM, "Jim Schaad"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I was looking at the registries that have been created by IANA for the JOSE
documents. I want to ask for a change in the template from IANA on the
registry but need to run it past the working group before doing so.
In the post IESG documents, a new field was added to the registration template
for algorithms to provide pointers to documents that do analysis on the
security properties of the algorithm that the registration request is for.
This field was added mainly for the benefit of the IANA designated experts and
is not really needed long term for people who look up the algorithm in the
table. As such I think we can ask IANA to remove the column from the
registration table as the data contained will be good only at the time of
registration and will not be updated to reflect more recent research on the
algorithm.
I think that would be fine. Since this is specification required, there would
be a way to see that information later if needed. Removing it from the
registry would still meet the request from the IESG reviews IMO.
Thanks,
Kathleen
Comments?
Jim
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
