Just to add some further commentary to this which I’ll say from the outset 
certainly doesn’t leave me feeling strongly either way on the topic at the 
moment.

One of the key observations I see is that if we look at the design of JWS and 
the fact that it supports two effective categories of cryptographic algorithms, 
HMAC and asymmetric digital signatures, within the same securing envelop which 
have different properties as an example of why it perhaps wouldn’t be un-usual 
for JWP to consider both the salt and hash SD scheme and signatures like BBS 
under the same envelop. I’m sure arguments can be made for why that design 
isn’t favourable in certain situations, which I think are what are being 
applied here now. But the tricky thing about designing these sorts of contain 
formats is that the tent needs to be big enough to actually be a tent and 
bifurcating things has a cost too. For instance how would have the JWT world 
played out if syntactically there were two classes of JWT’s? HMAC ones and 
asymmetric digital signature based ones?

Thanks,
[MATTR website]<https://mattr.global/>

Tobias Looker
MATTR
+64 273 780 461
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[MATTR website]<https://mattr.global/>
[MATTR on LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/mattrglobal>
[MATTR on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/mattrglobal>
[MATTR on Github]<https://github.com/mattrglobal>

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you should not read it – please contact me immediately, 
destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose 
anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not 
designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions 
Act 2002.

From: jose <[email protected]> on behalf of Brian Campbell 
<[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 10:22 AM
To: Orie Steele <[email protected]>
Cc: JOSE WG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [jose] JWP focus/scope
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.



On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 1:53 PM Orie Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
Inline
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023, 9:27 PM Brian Campbell 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
 wrote:
I was rewarded for a comment in the meeting today* with an action item to start 
a discussion on-list. So here I am with that. It's difficult (for me anyway) to 
articulate some of this in writing, which is why I wanted to voice it in the 
meeting. But that got redirected back to the list so here's my attempt :)

Basically my suggestion is/was that the JWP/JWA/JPT drafts should focus only on 
container formats and support for the newer cryptographic techniques, like BBS, 
that can provide both selective disclosure and unlinkability. And not try to do 
something with "traditional" cryptography and JWS that can only do selective 
disclosure. From my perspective it'd be preferable to have the overall JWP 
container/abstraction provide a more consistent set of security/privacy 
properties that doesn't vary by the algorithm (that kind of variance has been a 
problem in JWS, for example, where the same container can be asymmetrically 
signed, HMAC'd or not protected at all).

I agree.

And I think it'd be good to have the general design be unencumbered by 
considerations trying to retrofit or account for the "legacy" stuff. The 
documents could be simplified (or at least made shorter and more focused) too 
by removing the "Single Use JWP" concept that uses multiple JWS values as well 
as the MAC JPA stuff.

Move to a separate document?  Or simply remove?

Simply remove. In my view anyway. Selective disclosure alone is achievable now 
with other things like SD-JWT. Let JWP focus on the newer stuff that can't be 
done with other formats/containers.





* which did also refer back to similar comments from the BoF @ IETF 114
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/Qde04x9VqmhGavrlg2Gm_H54Zcc/



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. 
Thank you._______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. 
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to