[Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues

hideki nara hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp
Wed Oct 13 06:27:47 UTC 2010


I don't like signing + encryption at the same time too.
That would make things more complicated and no good fruits are produced.

2010/10/13 John Bradley <jbradley at mac.com>:
> If we were to unify the envelope then we would need to be clear on the order of precedence.
>
> The other issue is that the signature info winds up not being encrypted.
>
> I like the existing compose-ability of having a payload that can cleanly contain the other.
>
> The envelopes can be the same but I wouldn't want to do both signing and encryption at the same time.
>
> John B.
> On 2010-10-12, at 8:55 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list