Subject: [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:37:31 +0930

<CHAIR>

If you voted at the face-2-face please do not vote again.  If you want to
provide comments please change the title from POLL to DISCUSS.

Should we change the current treatment of AES-CBC + HMAC to use a single
content encryption name.

Old: {"enc":"A128CBC", "int":HS256", "kdf":"CS256"}
New: {"enc":"AES128CBC+HS256+CS256"}

Exact name is still to be determined

Room vote:  12 yes, 2 no, 0 discuss

---

From: Justin Richer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:38:39 -0400

No, this requires extra internal parsing on the part of anyone 
processing it, for no good reason that I can see. Use the JSON structure 
for what it's good at: structuring pieces of information together. Don't 
invent a new format for that.

  -- Justin

On 08/17/2012 03:07 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:05:22 -0700

DISCUSS

---

From: "Manger, James H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:06:47 +1000

YES!
[We only support AEAD encryption. Splitting some AEAD algorithms into some constituent parts (kdf,enc,mac) should be underneath (not visible at) the JOSE abstraction.]

--
James Manger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Jim Schaad
> Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012 5:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name
> 
> <CHAIR>
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:21:55 +0200

NO

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name

<CHAIR>

If you voted at the face-2-face please do not vote again.  If you want to provide comments please change the title from POLL to DISCUSS.

Should we change the current treatment of AES-CBC + HMAC to use a single content encryption name.

---

From: "HAYASHI, Tatsuya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:51:39 +0900

NO

-- 
HAYASHI, Tatsuya
Lepidum Co. Ltd.

---

From: Torsten Lodderstedt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:51:55 +0200

NO

---

From: Edmund Jay <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT)

NO

________________________________
From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Fri, August 17, 2012 12:09:15 AM
Subject: [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name

<CHAIR>

---

From: Edmund Jay <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:43:10 -0700 (PDT)

Sorry, I made a mistake.
I would like to change my vote to YES.

________________________________
From: Edmund Jay <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Tue, August 28, 2012 10:52:53 AM
Subject: Re: [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name

NO

<CHAIR>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:44:55 -0600

We don't actually vote at the IETF. :-)

But it seems that "the sense of the group" is pretty clear on this one...

/psa

On 8/28/12 12:43 PM, Edmund Jay wrote:
> Sorry, I made a mistake. I would like to change my vote to YES.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
*From:* Edmund Jay <[email-masked]>
> *To:* [email-masked] *Sent:* Tue, August 28, 2012 10:52:53 AM 
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name
> 
> NO
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
*From:* Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
> *To:* [email-masked] *Sent:* Fri, August 17, 2012 12:09:15 AM 
> *Subject:* [jose] POLL: Non AEAD algorithms as a single name
> 
> <CHAIR>
> 
> If you voted at the face-2-face please do not vote again.  If you
> want to provide comments please change the title from POLL to
> DISCUSS.
> 
> Old: {"enc":"A128CBC", "int":HS256", "kdf":"CS256"} New:
> {"enc":"AES128CBC+HS256+CS256"}
> 
> _______________________________________________ jose mailing list 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> _______________________________________________ jose mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>

---

From: Breno de Medeiros <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:08:08 -0700

YES

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlA9EacACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxPMwCgzZgeu/GNlLmu0a09v4e/3eVe
> 4wcAn1kxJPQS/XE4ey28F4oas694P2i/
> =UQK3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
--Breno

---

From: Chuck Mortimore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:11:13 -0700

YES

On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:

YES

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

/psa

> Sorry, I made a mistake. I would like to change my vote to YES.
*From:* Edmund Jay <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *To:* [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> *Sent:* Tue, August 28, 2012 10:52:53 AM
*From:* Jim Schaad <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *To:* [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> *Sent:* Fri, August 17, 2012 12:09:15 AM
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

--
--Breno

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

---

From: nov matake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:48:26 +0900

YES