W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > January 2013

Re: [jose] draft revision to JOSE charter

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:21:18 +0100
Message-ID: <5108596E.6040000@w3.org>
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
CC: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, jose@ietf.org, odonoghue@isoc.org
To clarify, we will organize a formal review from Web Crypto in late 
February/early March before Last Call ideally, and one during Last Call 
if needed.

As WebCrypto will not likely hit Last Call till Fall this year, it is 
always possible new requirements may happen after the proposed Last Call 
dates, but I don't think that will necessitate changes to the draft 
charter.

Do notify us once the charter is updated/approved.

I think Mike has done a great job liasoning between the WGs and Richard 
has gone out of his way to get compatibility better. However, there are 
different requirements in WebCrypto than JOSE for some features and we 
need to make sure the members of the WebCrypto API who aren't also 
members of JOSE (i.e. Mike and Richard) spend the time to clarify their 
requirements before you hit Last Call.

    cheers,
        harry


On 01/25/2013 05:28 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> In my view as a humble participant, now.
>
> It seems that there is a fair bit of disagreement about what exactly should be the relationship between WebCrypto and JOSE, as evidenced by a recent thread on the WebCrypto mailing list [1].  It would be good to find out sooner rather than later what the requirements are for JOSE from WebCrypto, and whether the current specs meet these requirements.
>
> --Richard
>
>
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2013Jan/0024.html>
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>  From a process perspective, my recommendation would be for Web Crypto to review the JOSE deliverables *before* they hit last call.
>>
>> What would be a good time for that from the Jose WG's perspective?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- 
>> Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> (@roessler)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013-01-23, at 12:18 +0100, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd just like to note that the W3C Web Crypto WG (of which Mike Jones is a member) have been informally liasoning. However, as we enter Last Call we may need to formalize this relationship more.
>>>
>>> I expect the Web Crypto WG to give a formal review of JOSE specs when they hit Last Call. We probably don't need to sync charters (as that would delay JOSE and we'd prefer JOSE to be stable *before* we hit Last Call), but we do need to review and may need to ask for changes. If that is necessary to note in the rechartering, please do so.
>>>
>>> And yes, its via discussions in the WebCrypto WG that the need for private and symmetric key JOSE formats was brought up. Our spec is not in Last Call, and thus our use of those is not yet set in stone, but it does seem like a good idea to add them to the charter as we may need them.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>    harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2013 09:02 PM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Below is a draft update to our charter based on discussions at the last IETF meeting. The key changes are adding key representations and algorithm identifiers to the scope of work. This includes some minor language updates in the general section, the addition of deliverables 5-8, and the addition and modification of a number of milestones related to these documents.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the phrase "using a compact URL-safe representation" has been added to the descriptions of the first two deliverables and "compact JSON object" used in the milestones.
>>>>
>>>> Jim and I will be submitting a revised charter shortly, and we would like your comments by 18 January if possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Description of Working Group
>>>>
>>>> JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the serialization of structured data described in RFC 4627.  The JSON format is often used for serializing and transmitting structured data over a network connection.  With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services such as encryption, digital signatures, message authentication codes (MACs), and key representations for data that is being carried in JSON format.
>>>>
>>>> Different proposals for providing such security services have already been defined and implemented.  This Working Group's task is to standardize four kinds of security services, integrity protection (signature and MAC), encryption, key representations, and algorithm identifiers, in order to increase interoperability of security features between protocols that use JSON.  The Working Group will base its work on well-known message security primitives (e.g., CMS), and will solicit input from the rest of the IETF Security Area to be sure that the security functionality in the JSON format is correct.
>>>>
>>>> This group is chartered to work on eight documents:
>>>>
>>>> (1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply JSON-structured integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a compact URL-safe representation.  "Integrity protection" includes public-key digital signatures as well as symmetric-key MACs.
>>>>
>>>> (2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a compact URL-safe representation.
>>>>
>>>> (3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public keys as JSON-structured objects.
>>>>
>>>> (4) A Standards Track document specifying algorithms and algorithm identifiers, including mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the previous three documents.
>>>>
>>>> (5) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply JSON-structured integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a JSON representation supporting multiple recipients.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (1).
>>>>
>>>> (6) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures, using a JSON representation supporting multiple recipients.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (2).
>>>>
>>>> (7) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode private and symmetric keys as JSON-structured objects.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (3).
>>>>
>>>> (8) A Standards Track application document specifying a means of protecting private and symmetric keys via encryption.  This document will build upon the concepts and structures in (2) and (7).  This document may register additional algorithms in registries defined by (4).
>>>>
>>>> The working group may decide to address combinations of these goals in consolidated document(s), in which case the concrete milestones for these goals will be satisfied by the consolidated document(s).
>>>>
>>>> Goals and Milestones
>>>>
>>>> Jan 2012              Submit compact JSON object integrity document (1) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Jan 2012              Submit compact JSON object encryption document (2) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Jan 2012              Submit JSON key format document (3) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Jan 2012              Submit JSON algorithm document (4) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on compact JSON object integrity document (1).
>>>>
>>>> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on compact JSON object encryption document (2).
>>>>
>>>> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document (3).
>>>>
>>>> Feb 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document (4).
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit JSON object integrity document (1) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit JSON object encryption document (2) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit JSON key format document (3) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit JSON algorithm document (4) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit multi-recipient JSON object integrity document (5) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit multi-recipient JSON object encryption document (6) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit JSON private and symmetric key document (7) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Mar 2013             Submit JSON key protection application document (8) as a WG item.
>>>>
>>>> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on multi-recipient JSON object integrity document (5).
>>>>
>>>> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on multi-recipient JSON object encryption document (6).
>>>>
>>>> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON private and symmetric key document (7).
>>>>
>>>> Jun 2013              Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key protection application document (8).
>>>>
>>>> Jul 2013               Submit multi-recipient JSON object integrity document (5) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Jul 2013               Submit multi-recipient JSON object encryption document (6) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Jul 2013               Submit JSON private and symmetric key document (7) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> Jul 2013               Submit JSON key protection application document (8) to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jose mailing list
>>>> jose@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 23:21:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 January 2013 23:21:28 GMT