[Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues

Wed Oct 13 15:38:45 UTC 2010

So I think that the key advertisement can be done several ways but I think that the simplest way would be to use the JSON token as a way to get/discover keys

-----Original Message-----
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:07 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues

OK I will rework that part unless there are objections.

John B.
On 2010-10-13, at 12:03 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> I'd rather it be RECOMMENDED, as (per our phone call), there are other potential means for advertising/discovering/obtaining public keys that could be used than placing them in an X.509 cert at a URL.  I think the signing spec will be more general if we don't completely tightly bind the JSON signing spec to a particular key discovery mechanism.
> 
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net 
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of John 
> Bradley
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:09 AM
> To: Nat Sakimura
> Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Remaining Issues
> 
> In  2. Signature paramaters we made key_id optional so that in the simple case where the default is HMAC-SHA256 we can drop the Signature parameters completely to be compatible with the current FB format.
> 
> certs_uri is still required for RSA-SHA256.
> 
> If it is required it should probably be required for all asymmetric signatures.
> I can imagine that there may be cases where there might only be one key pair being used and it might not be required.
> 
> Thoughts on making the element RECOMMENDED for all asymmetric signatures rather than required?
> 
> John B.
> On 2010-10-13, at 12:19 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 