Sorry to chime in so late. I have been completely under water for sometime now.
Like Phil, I do see that draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options sort of thing can be very useful, though I may want to have slightly different way of encoding the things. Being able to do detached signature is quite attractive. Best, Nat 2015-07-10 2:37 GMT+09:00 Kathleen Moriarty < [email protected]>: > Hi, > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > > About > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00, > I’ll add that this addresses the requests make by Jim Schaad and Richard > Barnes in JOSE Issues #26 “Allow for signature payload to not be base64 > encoded” and #23 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/23 “Make > crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)”. > > > > About > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01, > I’ll add that this addresses the request made by Jim Schaad in JOSE Issue > #2 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/2 “No key management > for MAC”. > > > > Also, there’s a highly relevant discussion about key management for MACs > going on in the COSE working group. See the thread “[Cose] Key > management for MACs (was Re: Review of draft-schaad-cose-msg-01)” – > especially > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/aUehU6O7Ui8CXcGxy3TquZOxWH4 > and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ouOIdAOe2P-W8BjGLJ7BNvvRr10 > . > > > > One could take the view that our decision on the JOSE key management draft > should be informed by the related decision in COSE. Specifically, that if > COSE decides to support key management for MACs, the same reasoning likely > should apply to our decision on whether to define a standard mechanism for > supporting key management for MACs in JOSE. > > > > Key management is explicitly out-of-scope for COSE as stated in the > charter. The discussion referenced had this point at the close of that > discussion. > > I'm not seeing much support for these drafts moving forward in JOSE. I'm > also not seeing enough to justify standards track and AD sponsored. If you > think these are important to have move forward in the WG or as standards > track, please say so soon. They can still go forward through the > Independent submission process through the ISE. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > > -- Mike > > > > *From:* jose [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Karen O'Donoghue > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:38 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts > > > > Folks, > > > > With the thumbprint draft progressing through the process, we have two > remaining individual drafts to decide what to do with. The options include: > 1) adopt as working group drafts; 2) ask for AD sponsorship of individual > drafts; or 3) recommend that they not be published. Please express your > thoughts on what we should do with these drafts. Jim, Kathleen, and I would > like to make a decision in the Prague timeframe, so please respond by 15 > July. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.txt > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-jose-key-managed-json-web-signature-01.txt > > > > Thanks, > > Karen > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
