[Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 16:25:21 UTC 2010


What is the exact problem that you have with current
http://jsonenc.info/jss/1.0/ ?

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM, hideki nara <hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp> wrote:
> FB compatibility could be a good point.
> But I found that  I don't like FB spec. :-)
> OK, it would work anyway and I must be a matter of preference.
> ----
> hideki
>
> 2010/10/13 Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>:
>> Just for the sake of discussion I have updated
>> http://jsonenc.info/jss/1.0/ to reflect the talk that I had with John
>> this morning. It is now compatible with Facebook implementation and
>> hopefully more or less in-line with JSON Web Token proposal which is
>> being prepared by Mike et. al. as well.
>>
>> Let us see if we can converge.
>>
>> =nat
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:26 AM, John Bradley <jbradley at mac.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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