Hi,

I'm sending draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options draft to the W3C
Web Payments Interest Group for reviews, as some participants there have
expressed interest in a more developer-readable method for signed linked
data.

--Wendy

On 07/13/2015 02:24 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> It's good too see that a few people do support these drafts.  Will each of 
> you be sending reviews and comments to the list shortly on these drafts?  If 
> the chairs think it's reasonable to accept the drafts, they will also need to 
> know there will be active support.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kathleen 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Edmund Jay <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> From: Nat Sakimura <[email protected]>
>> To: Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]> 
>> Cc: Mike Jones <[email protected]>; Karen O'Donoghue 
>> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: [jose] way forward for two remaining drafts
>>
>> 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]] 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
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- [email protected] +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to