IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAF621F8F4A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o18FC0jYovy6 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0212.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F0E21F8AD5 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2FFO11FD012.protection.gbl (10.1.15.201) by BY2FFO11HUB006.protection.gbl (10.1.14.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.664.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:21:11 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD012.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.14.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:20:40 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.224]) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:20:09 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
Thread-Index: AQHONxCatRlv3atUREqdqm0NbKM8V5jUiWOAgALe6hA=
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:20:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367641218@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org> <92D56D5A-C8E3-4143-9976-409D3E6975C3@adm.umu.se>
In-Reply-To: <92D56D5A-C8E3-4143-9976-409D3E6975C3@adm.umu.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(13464002)(377454001)(81342001)(50986001)(74502001)(54356001)(47976001)(4396001)(47776003)(15202345002)(47736001)(46102001)(23726002)(80022001)(74662001)(44976003)(76482001)(33656001)(63696002)(56776001)(81542001)(69226001)(55846006)(66066001)(51856001)(65816001)(53806001)(47446002)(77982001)(31966008)(56816002)(50466001)(5343655001)(20776003)(54316002)(49866001)(561944001)(46406003)(16406001)(59766001)(79102001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB006; H:TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0817737FD1
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:20:50 -0000

1.  Continue having separate Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values in the JWE representation.

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hedberg
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:19 PM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

1

12 apr 2013 kl. 01:58 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>:

Issue #11 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/11 proposes restructuring the JWE representation to remove the JWE Integrity Value field and instead use the RFC 5116 (AEAD) binary serialization to represent the Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values.  If this proposal is adopted, JWEs would then have three fields - the header, the encrypted key, and the RFC 5116 combination of the Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values. 
This issue is also related to issue #3.  Note that the updated McGrew draft described there could be used whether or not we switched to using RFC 5116.
 

Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?

1.  Continue having separate Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values in the JWE representation.

2.  Switch to using the RFC 5116 (AEAD) serialization to represent the combination of these three values.

3.  Another resolution (please specify in detail).

0.  I need more information to decide.

 

Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th or earlier. 
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email