One of the goals of JOSE is to increase the number of interoperable
implementations.  I don't think a lack of MTI algorithms will further that
goal.


On 8/9/11 12:02 PM, "Thomas Hardjono" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> As far as I can remember, CMS (RFC3852 and RFC5652) does not choose any
> specific algorithm.
> 
> Therefore it make sense for JOSE to follow the same approach.
> 
> /thomas/
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________
> 
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Phillip Hallam-Baker
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:34 PM
> To: Joe Hildebrand
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: Proposed
> charter, post-Quebec edition
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Joe Hildebrand <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Agree. Algorithm agility is a must, but large numbers of supported
> algorithms out of the gate are not. Having a small set of algorithms
> widely-implemented will increase interoperability drastically, particularly
> considering that in some of the target operating environments, we'll need to
> wait for people with adequate cryptographic skills to help.
> 
> I do really like the idea of splitting the MTI specification into a small
> separate draft, so that it can be rev'd easily as needed.
> 
> +1
> 
> And that way we can have two profiles (or more) to address different
> implementation situations.
> 
> Web Services implementation constraints are frequently asymmetric. There is
> one portion built on some all-singing/dancing platform like .NET or whatever
> and that talks to a thin client embedded in Jscript or a mobile device or
> what-have-you.
> 
> If we can avoid creating yet another crypto-registry (i.e. re-use the PEM or
> whatever algorithm registry) then all the spec needs to say is that X is the
> slot where the algorithm name goes and the MTI doc(s) specify how to get
> interoperability.
>  

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

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

Reply via email to