[Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Tue Oct 12 23:55:08 UTC 2010


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com> wrote:
> I'm OK with either short or long names
>
> I really believe that we need sig_parms and if the receiver supports the algorithm but does not support all the sig_parms the token may be rejected, it would be nice to have a set of agreed base sig_parms for each algorithm as some algorithms have many parms
>

That would be a good idea. Do you have specific proposals?

> I would like to see a payload, this would also allow for encryption

Yes. Currently we have different envelopes for Signature
(http://jsonenc.info/jss/1.0/ OR
http://jsonenc.dinfo/jss/1.0/json-simple-sign-1_0a.html ) and
Encryption (http://jsonenc.info/enc/1.0 ). If we have "payload" and
"sig_params", we can unify the envelope. (JSON Encryption was written
before Signature got sig_params and payload so it is taking the
current form.)

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:27 AM
> To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues
>
> So far, the feedbacks that I got are:
>
> For the main spec:
>
> * Make 8.3 and 8.4 optional so that there could be two leg style request  -> I am not sure if this should be in AB as there is no "artifact"
> involved then.
>     Perhaps it is better to save it for Connect or CX?
>
> * _url and _uri are mixed. Understand that the authors made careful
>  selection of the terms, but it may be too much. Better standardize on _uri  -> OK to standardize on _uri ?
>
> For the signature spec (JSS):
>
> * Try to Unify with JWT for the Web Token serialization and signature:
> -> As I understand, the main deltas are:
>   * Whether to use short names as in JWT or long name as in Facebook.
>   * Whether to have sig_params so that it can support multiple signers and keys.
>   * Whether to have "payload" or just inserting signature parameters to the original JSON Object.
>
> For JSON serialization of JSS:
>
> * Whether to use "dictionary" as in the current proposal or "array"
> which simplifies bunch of things.
>
> For JWT serialization:
>
> * Whether to allow multiple signatures by sig1.sig2.sig3. ... . payload style.
>
> Please indicate your preferences.
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list