There's a thread on this review on the JOSE working group list, which you can
see at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/maillist.html. If you
have comments on the proposed resolutions, please add your thoughts there.
-Original Message-
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf
Thanks for the review, Tom. I've cc'ed the OAuth working group so that they're
aware of the contents of your review.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 8:39 PM
To: draft-ietf-oau
Thanks for the review, Roni. I'm also cc'ing the working group so they're
aware of your review. Replies are inline below...
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 4:47 AM
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: i
New versions of the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and JSON Web
Token (JWT) specifications have been published incorporating feedback received
in IETF Last Call comments. Thanks to Russ Housley and Roni Even for their
Gen-ART reviews, to Tero Kivinen, Scott Kelly, Stephen Kent, Charl
Thanks again for your review, Russ. The proposed resolutions below have been
applied in the -32 draft.
-- Mike
From: Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:22 PM
To: 'Russ Housley'
Cc: j...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-
Thanks again for your review, Roni. The resolutions discussed below have been
applied in the -32 draft.
-- Mike
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 2:41 PM
To: Mike Jones; draft-ietf
Sounds good
From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Russ Housley; j...@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31
Hi Mike,
I'm just
Given I was already editing to address Stephen’s missed comments, I added this
too.
-- Mike
From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Russ Housley; j
:
If there is an x5u pointing to a certification issued by a major CA, is TLS
required for the HTTP query used to retrieve this certificate? TLS shouldn't
be needed since the certificate is a signed object. Therefore, the "MUST" use
TLS for cert retrieval should be changed to
Thanks for your review, Scott. I'm adding the working group to the thread so
they're aware of your comments. Replies are inline below...
-Original Message-
From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:08 PM
To: gen-art; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key
IETF; IETF Gen-ART; Russ Housley; Mike Jones; j...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33
The attack is not possible if the receiver validates the host from the x5u
against the certificate CN and val
Jones
Cc: gen-art; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org; j...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Minor issues:
>
> More than once it is said that members that are not understood
&
Thanks for your review, Suresh. I've added the working group so they're aware
of the contents of your review.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:56 PM
To: draft-ietf-
Thanks for your review, Meral. I've added the working group to this thread so
that they're aware of your comments.
> From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:40 AM
> To: draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.o
Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:27 PM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org; gen-art; j...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33
I agree with your observation about the surrounding protocol. Thanks
cussion is probably needed
on that topic.
Thanks again,
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:jose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:11 A
Hi Joel. Thanks for looking this over again. Section 3.4 was added in
response to Adam Montville's SecDir comments, in which his focus was on cases
where the hash function didn't have to be known to multiple parties. I guess
it's only fair that you focus on the cases where it does. ;-)
Curre
Hi Robert. Thanks for the useful review. Replies are inline below...
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:08 AM
> To: General Area Review Team ; i...@ietf.org;
> j...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-opti.
ssage-
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:i...@augustcellars.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 9:08 PM
To: Mike Jones ; 'Robert Sparks'
; 'General Area Review Team' ;
i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-opti...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [jose] Gen-Art LC r
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Mike Jones ; General Area Review Team
; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-opti...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-j
These resolutions are now published in -07. Thanks again!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:05 PM
To: Robert Sparks ; General Area Review Team
; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Robert. Replies are inline below...
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:12 PM
> To: Mike Jones ; General Area Review Team
> ; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; draf
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:r...@ipv.sx]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:23 PM
To: Robert Sparks
Cc: Mike Jones ; General Area Review Team
; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-opti...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-Art L
Hi Jim,
Please see my replies to Robert and Richard. I believe they cover the point
you're making below.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:i...@augustcellars.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:42 PM
To: Mike Jones ; &#
com]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:08 AM
To: Mike Jones ; Robert Sparks
; General Area Review Team ;
j...@ietf.org; Ben Campbell ; Benoit Claise
Subject: RE: [jose] Gen-Art LC review:
draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
Mike proposes the following:
"Using "crit&
FYI, Robert, "crit" is now required with "b64", as you'd requested.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:58 PM
To: 'Robert Sparks' ; General Area Review Team
; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-jose-jws-sig
Thanks for taking the time to review the specification, Paul. We appreciate it!
Replies are inline below...
-Original Message-
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 PM
To: draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Revie
Hi Paul,
Per my earlier reply at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg14212.html, the
specified registration procedure is the standard IANA one, prefixed by a public
review period. JWT registrations, OAuth registrations, .well-known
registrations, and others all already wo
cy matters.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:28 PM
To: Mike Jones ;
draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat revie
,
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:57 AM
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: Mike Jones ;
draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org; General Area Review Team
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-rsa-04 addresses your review
comments, Roni. Thanks for the useful review!
-- Mike
P.S. I also thanked you in the publication announcement at
http://self-issued.info/?p=1697 and as
Thanks for the review and validating the examples, Brian!
-Original Message-
From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 7:58 PM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: oa...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-oauth-discovery@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review o
I agree with Jim. This information is in the registration template at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12#section-9.1.1, as
follows:
Claim Key:
CBOR map key for the claim. Integer values between -256 and 255
and strings of length 1 are designated as
Replies inline…
From: Ace On Behalf Of Dan Romascanu
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: gen-art ; a...@ietf.org; ietf ; Benjamin
Kaduk ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12
Hi Jim,
Th
!
-- Mike
From: Dan Romascanu
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:24 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Jim Schaad ; gen-art ;
a...@ietf.org; ietf ; Benjamin Kaduk ;
draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace
Thanks for your useful feedback, Alexey. Below, I'll respond to each of your
comments. I've also added the OAuth working group to the thread, so they are
aware of them as well and can participate in the discussion.
About your first issue with the WWW-Authenticate ABNF, I am already working
wi
Hi Alexey,
About your issue 1: The OAuth Core spec, where "scope" is primarily defined,
includes the sentence "The [scope] strings are defined by the authorization
server" (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-25#section-3.3). I
could add that clarification to the Bearer spec as
FYI, the b64 token definition is identical to the one in
draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20. If it works there, it should work for OAuth
Bearer.
-- Mike
From: Stephen Farrell
Sent: 7/17/2012 4:12 AM
To: draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer@tools.ietf.org
Cc: General Area
we *definitely* want to allow.
As a result, I don't think adding a reference to RFC 4648 is either necessary
or appropriate.
Julian may be able to provide more background.
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Alexey Melnikov; General Area Review Team; The IESG;
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer@tools.ietf.org; oa...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt
On 2012-07-17 19:15, Mike
,
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:48 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: General Area Review Team; The IESG;
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer@tools.ietf.org; oa...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Gen-art
: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melni...@isode.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:58 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Julian Reschke; The IESG; General Area Review Team; oa...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer@tools.ietf.org; Stephen Farrell
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review
Thanks for your review, Christer. Replies are inline, prefixed by "Mike>"…
-Original Message-
From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 10:44 AM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
a...@ietf.org
Subje
Hi Christer,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09 has been
published, which addresses your review comments in the ways proposed below.
Thanks again for your review!
-- Mike
From: Mike Jones
Sent
Thanks for your review, Paul. After consultation with Jeff Hodges, we've
decided to delete the language about defining additional fields. (This
language was copied from RFC 8288 but we decided that it wasn't needed for the
purposes of this specification.)
You can see proposed updated source f
Thanks for your review, Robert. I'm working on addressing the review comments
received and wanted to have a clarifying discussion on some of yours before
deciding what corresponding edits to make.
I think there's a misunderstanding about "jti" values and the security model.
Because communicat
Thanks for the quick reply. My responses are inline, prefixed by "Mike>".
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Mike Jones ; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll@ietf.org;
id-ev...@ietf.or
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 8:26 AM
To: Mike Jones ; Robert Sparks
; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll@ietf.org;
id-ev...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Id-event] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-0
Thanks for your useful review, Vijay. I've attempted to address your comments
in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-11. My replies
are inline, prefixed by "Mike>".
-Original Message-
From: Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:17 AM
To: gen
nsistent changes there as
well.
I hope to hear back from the working group with your thoughts this week.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 9:36 AM
To: Mike Jones ; Robert Sparks
; gen-art@ietf.org; Valery Smyslo
.
Cheers,
-- Mike
From: Richard Backman, Annabelle
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:40 PM
To: Dick Hardt ; Mike Jones
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; Valery Smyslov ; gen-art@ietf.org; Yaron
Sheffer ; draft-ietf
s://twitter.com/selfissued>.
From: Phillip Hunt
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:11 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Dick Hardt ; Yaron Sheffer ;
Robert Sparks ; Richard Backman, Annabelle
; Valery Smyslov ; gen-art@ietf.org;
last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll@ietf.org;
id-ev...@ietf.or
Thanks Robert. I applied your proposed language to the appendix in Push.
Thanks again,
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 12:50 PM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf
I agree with Jim's response to the comparison question.
An RFC is being created because a tag is being registered in the Specification
Required range of the Tags Registry specified at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049#section-7.2.
-- Mike
-Original Message
54 matches
Mail list logo
