Can I talk you into looking at the other three reported errata on that RFC? (RFC 7519 and Erratas: 5906, 7720, and 8225) To make it worth my while to wrestle w/ the RFC errata system...
Deb On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 5:56 PM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: > Pieter said errata in July of last year and we've had this very > intermittent conversation about https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8060 > in the intervening months. I think it's ready for those edits and button > pushing you mentioned. No impact on RFCs 7797 or 8725 (BCP 225). These are > the edits I think we've agreed on as validated/verified technical errata: > > Section 7.2 says: > > 5. Verify that the resulting JOSE Header includes only parameters > and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and > supported or that are specified as being ignored when not > understood. > > It should say: > > 5. Verify the resulting JOSE Header according to RFC7515 or RFC7516. > > Notes: > Validation step 5 in section 7.2 of RFC 7519 states that header parameters > should only be ignored if they are explicitly specified as needing to be > ignored. > > This is contrary to step 7 in section 7.2 of RFC 7519 which requires that > the processing rules of RFC 7515 should be followed if the JWT is a JWS, or > the rules of RFC7516 should be followed if the JWT is a JWE. Neither RFC > 7515 nor RFC 7516 include any special provisions for only ignoring header > parameters if they are specified as being ignored, but instead requires all > header parameters to be ignored if they are not understood, except if they > are critical. > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 4:37 AM Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Errata? Did I hear you say errata? >> >> I can push the buttons to properly dispatch this. I think this includes >> editing an errata and certainly includes adding notes to it. I need to >> know what edits and or comments you want made, and what outcome (reject, >> validate, hold for document update). Also how it affects RFCs 7797 and >> 8725 (BCP 225), since I see that 7519 is updated by these. >> >> While we are doing this work, there are three others (5906, 7720, and >> 8225) at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7519&rec_status=2&area_acronym=sec&presentation=table >> . Take a peek and tell me how to mark them (reject, validate, HFDU). The >> tooling for this is, hmmmm old, so I like to do these in groups. >> >> If there is appetite, we can look at other oauth errata... >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:56 PM Brian Campbell <bcampbell= >> 40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> Apologies Pieter, this fell "below the fold" in my inbox so to speak and >>> I lost track of responding to it. Thanks for the proposed new "notes" for >>> the errata, which I do think are sufficient now. In conjunction with that >>> simple "corrected text" you had of "5. Verify the resulting JOSE Header >>> according to RFC7515 or RFC7516." >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 8:25 PM Pieter Kasselman <pie...@spirl.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Brian, as discussed at IETF 121, it would be good to wrap up on this >>>> errata. Is the below sufficient, or are there additional refinements or >>>> steps to take? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Pieter >>>> >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Hi Brian, agreed, and thanks for pointing that out. Suggestion below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Notes >>>> ----- >>>> Validation step 5 in section 7.2 of RFC 7519 states that header parameters >>>> should only be ignored if they are explicitly specified as needing to be >>>> ignored. >>>> >>>> This is contrary to step 7 in section 7.2 of RFC 7519 which requires that >>>> the processing rules of RFC 7515 should be followed if the JWT is a JWS, >>>> or the rules of RFC7516 should be followed if the JWT is a JWE. Neither >>>> RFC 7515 nor RFC 7516 include any special provisions for only ignoring >>>> header parameters if they are specified as being ignored, but instead >>>> requires all header parameters to be ignored if they are not understood, >>>> except if they are critical. >>>> >>>> This errata clarifies that JOSE Header parameters should be verified >>>> according to RFC7515 (JWS) or RFC7516 (JWE). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>>> <<bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>>> Sent: Monday 12 August 2024 19:46 >>>> To: Pieter Kasselman <pieter.kassel...@microsoft.com> >>>> <<pieter.kassel...@microsoft.com>> >>>> Cc: David Waite <da...@alkaline-solutions.com> >>>> <<da...@alkaline-solutions.com>>; Paul Wouters >>>> <paul.wout...@aiven.io> <<paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; RFC Errata System >>>> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> <<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>>; >>>> prkassel...@gmail.com; oauth@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7519 (8060) >>>> >>>> Thanks Pieter, >>>> >>>> That sounds good to me. I think a bit of the explanatory text in the >>>> "Notes" part of the errata likely needs to be adjusted accordingly too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:01 AM Pieter Kasselman >>>> <pieter.kasselman=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>>> wrote: >>>> Thanks David and Brian. >>>> >>>> Unless there are any concerns with adopting the alternative text, I would >>>> suggest the following for the errata in section 7.2 bullet 5: >>>> >>>> Original Text >>>> ------------- >>>> 5. Verify that the resulting JOSE Header includes only parameters >>>> and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and >>>> supported or that are specified as being ignored when not >>>> understood. >>>> >>>> Corrected Text >>>> -------------- >>>> 5. Verify the resulting JOSE Header according to RFC7515 or RFC7516. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Pieter >>>> >>>> From: David Waite >>>> <david=40alkaline-solutions....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40alkaline-solutions....@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>>> Sent: Monday 5 August 2024 22:43 >>>> To: Pieter Kasselman >>>> <pieter.kasselman=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>>> Cc: Paul Wouters >>>> <paul.wouters=40aiven...@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40aiven...@dmarc.ietf.org>>; >>>> RFC Errata System >>>> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>>; >>>> prkassel...@gmail.com<mailto:prkassel...@gmail.com>; >>>> oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7519 (8060) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2024, at 1:52 PM, Pieter Kasselman >>>> <pieter.kasselman=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:pieter.kasselman=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I tried to keep the changes to additional text that would scope the >>>> processing rules more precisely for the JWT/JWS/JWE cases (point 7 in the >>>> processing steps references JWS and JWE separately, so thought I would >>>> propose text that does something similar to that). The idea of additional >>>> text is that a reader who is familiar may find it easier to process the >>>> delta. >>>> >>>> However, if we want to change the text, I like your second option: >>>> >>>> "Verify the resulting JOSE Header according to RFC7515 or RFC7516." >>>> >>>> I don’t think we should delete the bullet completely. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Pieter >>>> >>>> I prefer this over the current text, which might be incorrectly construed >>>> to provide counter guidance to the “crit” protected header parameter. >>>> >>>> -DW >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>> oauth-le...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-le...@ietf.org> >>>> >>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged >>>> material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, >>>> distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have >>>> received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately >>>> by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your >>>> computer. Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and >>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any >>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. >>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender >>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from >>> your computer. Thank you.* >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org >>> >> > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from > your computer. Thank you.*
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
