Subject: Re: [jose] Open Issue for WG Discussion: Whether to move JWK algorithm family definitions to JWA spec (editorial)

From: "Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:56:38 -0700

Hi Mike, hi guys,

+1 for moving the algorithm definitions to the JWA spec.

My reasoning goes as follows:

1. The JWK spec is about presentation and format (JSON), 
   JWA is about the algorithms.

2. The algorithms is perhaps the most likely thing to change
   in future (say 5 or 10 years) and if that happens ideally
   only the JWA spec would have to be updated.

Non-normative examples in the JWK is indeed an effective way to
illustrate the spec without entangling it with algorithm
implementations. 

Vladimir

--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : [email-masked]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [jose] Open Issue for WG Discussion: Whether to move JWK
algorithm family definitions to JWA spec (editorial)
From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, April 09, 2012 4:46 pm
To: John Bradley <[email-masked]>, Jim Schaad
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

  The readability would be somewhat reduced by having to refer to the
second document.  That being said, I believe this could be mitigated by
the use of examples.  Since opinion (of the two participants in the
discussion to date) seems to favor moving the algorithm family
definitions to JWA, I’ll plan on doing that unless others speak up
taking the counter position.
  
                                                             -- Mike
  
   From: John Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
 Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 7:46 AM
 To: Jim Schaad
 Cc: Mike Jones; [email-masked]
 Subject: Re: [jose] Open Issue for WG Discussion: Whether to move JWK
algorithm family definitions to JWA spec (editorial)

 It is mostly a style question I think.

Given that the elements can be directly embedded in JWE,  as well as
being represented externally in a JWK,  I think JWA is probably the
correct place for them as it makes it easier to add new crypto algs.

The solution for JWK is good examples I think.

I suppose the downside is an extra level of indirection through the
specs for developers.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other, just have a slight
preference for JWA. (My track record on document structure is slightly
suspect though)

John B.
 
On 2012-04-07, at 11:25 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:

 
   Please explain why you believe the readability of the document would
be reduced.  There would still be the ability to have examples that
referenced the algorithm draft.

Jim

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Mike Jones
 Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:05 PM
 To: [email-masked]
 Subject: [jose] Open Issue for WG Discussion: Whether to move JWK
algorithm family definitions to JWA spec (editorial)

 
The JSON Web Key (JWK) spec currently contains the algorithm family
definitions and parameter specifications for the RSA and Elliptic Curve
algorithm families.  An editorial open issue is whether to leave these
in the JWK spec or move them to the JWA spec.

The argument for leaving them in the JWK spec is that removing the
definitions of “EC” and “RSA” and the family-specific parameter
definitions ("crv", "x", "y", "mod", "exp") would leave very little
normative text in the JWK spec itself.  It seemed like doing this would
reduce the readability of the JWK spec, and so was not done in -01.

The argument for moving them is that all the algorithm-specific
definitions would then be in the JWA spec and good examples of RSA and
EC keys could remain in the JWK spec.

References to the pertinent specs are:
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-01
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-01

Feedback?

                                                                -- Mike

_______________________________________________
 jose mailing list
 [email-masked]
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose