This was discussed in the thread http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11315.html and prior to that, as JOSE issue #17 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/17.
-----Original Message----- From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:52 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: Richard Barnes; Brian Campbell; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: alternative term to "plaintext" for the "none" alg (was Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token) On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, this was already extensively discussed. It was covered in issue > #36 > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/36 and the related > working group e-mail thread. It was also a topic during multiple > interim working group calls. As noted by Karen O’Donoghue (one of the > chairs) in the issue description “Note: There was extensive discussion > on the mailing list, and the rough consensus of the working group was > to leave "none" in the document.” As part of the resolution agreed to > by the working group, the security considerations text at > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31#sec > tion-8.5 > was added. That seems to be mainly talking about the "alg": "none" / null cipher bit. I was specifically speaking to: 5.3. Replicating Claims as Header Parameters ..... This specification allows Claims present in the JWT Claims Set to be replicated as Header Parameters in a JWT that is a JWE, as needed by the application. If such replicated Claims are present, the application receiving them SHOULD verify that their values are identical, unless the application defines other specific processing rules for these Claims. It is the responsibility of the application to ensure that only claims that are safe to be transmitted in an unencrypted manner are replicated as Header Parameter values in the JWT. ..... Having the claims appear in 2 places seems like bad mojo - but, if this was discussed, and people are OK with it,... W > > > > -- Mike > > > > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:40 AM > To: Richard Barnes > Cc: Brian Campbell; Mike Jones; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: alternative term to "plaintext" for the "none" alg (was Re: > [OAUTH-WG] Review of: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token) > > > On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will re-iterate here my strong preference that an "unsecured" or > "plaintext" JWS object be syntactically distinct from a real JWS object. > E.g. by having two dot-separated components instead of three. > > > > So, *I* was just grumping about the term used in the draft, but yes, > these should (IMO, etc) be different. > > > > I'm also still uncomfortable about the "you can have the same > information in the "secured" and "unsecured" section, but the secured > one shold be trusted more bit. This seems like it will end in fail. > (Apologies if this was already discussed and I missed it, and for > rushed tone of mail, > traveling...) > > > > W > > > > > > Beyond that, seems like just shuffling deck chairs. > > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Brian Campbell > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > cc'ing JOSE on a minor JWT review comment that might impact JWS/JWA. > > > I agree that "plaintext” is not the most intuitive wording choice and > that "unsecured" might better convey what's going on with the "none" > JWS algorithm. > > Mike mentioned that, if this change is made in JWT, there are parallel > changes in JWS. But note that there are also such changes in JWA (more > than in JWS actually). > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Mike Jones > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 3:40 PM > To: [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Review of: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token > > I'm a little confused by something in the Terminology section (Section 2): > > Plaintext JWT > > A JWT whose Claims are not integrity protected or encrypted. > > The term plaintext to me means something like "is readable without > decrypting / much decoding" (something like, if you cat the file to a > terminal, you will see the information). Integrity protecting a string > doesn't make it not easily readable. If this document / JOSE uses > "plaintext" differently (and a quick skim didn't find anything about > > this) it might be good to clarify. Section 6 *does* discuss plaintext > JWTs, but doesn't really clarify the (IMO) unusual meaning of the term > "plaintext" > here. > > > > I’ve discussed this with the other document editors and we agree with > you that “plaintext” is not the most intuitive wording choice in this context. > Possible alternative terms are “Unsecured JWT” or “Unsigned JWT”. I > think that “Unsecured JWT” is probably the preferred term, since JWTs > that are JWEs are also unsigned, but they are secured. Working group > – are you OK with this possible terminology change? (Note that the > parallel change “Plaintext JWS” -> “Unsecured JWS” would also be made > in the JWS spec.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
