Subject: [jose] draft notes from 13 Jan JOSE WG virtual interim

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:23:01 -0500

Folks,

Tonight's JOSE WG call discussed all the remaining open issues for JWE, 
JWS, JWA, and JWK. Below are the proposed actions for all these issues 
along with the mailing list discussion related the WebCrypto use of JWK. 
All the actions discussed below are expected to be completed by 1/20. At 
that point, it is expected that the documents will be ready to proceed 
to WGLC.

Comments, as always, are welcome.

Regards,
Karen

#70    Review of 2119 Language    json-web-key
Hold open through WGLC.

#89    Section 8. Security Considerations    json-web-key
#158    Section 7. Security Considerations    json-web-algorithms
No identified changes. Jim/Karen to review text.

#90    Section 9 References    json-web-key
Hold open through WGLC. Mike to update JSON references.

#93    New Appendix - How to find a key    json-web-signature
Updated text expected. Mike to produce a draft and circulate on mailing 
list for further comment.

#95    Use of proper JSON terminology    json-web-signature
No identified changes. Jim to review text.

#121    Section 7.2. JWS JSON Serailziation    json-web-signature
#178    Section 7.2 JWE JSON Serialization    json-web-encryption
Mike to reformat for better readability.

#147    Section 4.10.2 - Algorithm and examples json-web-algorithms
Hold open through WGLC assuming progress on the 
draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2-02.
Jim/Karen will contact the authors to see what can be done to progress 
the draft.

#165    Section 2. Terminology    json-web-encryption
Mike will clarify definitions, remove inconsistencies, and reduce 
duplication.

#187    Allow registration of non-JWE/JWS algorithms for JWK 
json-web-algorithms
Jim will close the issue.

Additionally, wrt the discussion from the mailing list related to W3C 
WebCrypto coordination (the email thread initiated by 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg03801.html), the 
decision was to use the approach detailed in the referenced email. The 
changes are to change the name of the "use_details" field to "key_ops" 
and to add text clarifying that you would use one field or the other not 
both.