Subject: [Jose-reg-review] Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:50:38 -0500

Please review the registration request in section 11.3 ( key elements 
copied below for convenience) at

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/>

Robert Sparks - STIR WG co-chair

------------

11.3. JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameter Registry

11.3.1. Registry Contents Additions Requested

    Header Parameter Name: "ppt"

    o  Header Parameter Description: PASSporT extension identifier

    o  Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWS

    o  Change Controller: IESG

    o  Specification Document(s): Section 8.1 of [RFCThis]

--------------

8.1. "ppt" (PASSporT) header parameter

    Any using protocol can extend the payload of PASSporT with additional
    JWT claims.  JWT claims are managed by an existing IANA registry as
    defined in [RFC7519] Section 10.1.  Implementations of PASSporT MUST
    support the baseline claims defined in Section 5.2, and MAY support
    extended claims.  If it is necessary for an extension to PASSporT to
    require that a relying party support a particular extended claim or
    set of claims in the PASSporT object, it can do so by specifying a
    "ppt" element for the PASSporT JOSE header.  All values of "ppt" need
    to be defined in a specification which associates the new value of
    the "ppt" element with the required claims and behaviors.  Relying
    parties MUST fail to validate PASSporT objects containing an
    unsupported "ppt".

    Using protocols MUST explicitly define the how each claim is carried
    in the using protocol and the rules for how the header and payload
    objects are constructed beyond the lexicographical and serialization
    rules defined in this document.

    Using protocols that carry the compact form of PASSporT, defined in
    Section 7, instead of the full form MUST use only mandatory
    extensions signaled with "ppt" - if a using protocol were to add
    additional optional claims to a PASSporT object it carried in compact
    form, relying parties would have no way to reconstruct the token.
    Moreover, using protocols that support the compact form of PASSporT
    MUST have some field to signal "ppt" to relying parties, as the
    compact form of PASSporT omits the JOSE header.

---

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:04:30 -0700

The changes with -09 deal with all of the issues I had on this.  Registration approval should be forthcoming.  I need to figure out the exact procedures for letting IANA know.

Jim

From: Jose-reg-review [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Russ Housley <[email-masked]>; Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>; Jon Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Jose-reg-review] Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport

Please review the registration request in section 11.3 ( key elements copied below for convenience) at

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/>

------------

 

 

--------------