Re: [jose] Question on enc location

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I think that simplification would be nice to have in the
single-recipient/single-signer case, but not critical.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> As a follow up.   Is this legal?****
>
> ** **
>
> {****
>
>   Header: <alg:”direct”, enc:”AES-GCM”},****
>
>   IV: …, tag:…, payload:…****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> Or is the line****
>
> ** **
>
> Recipients:[{}],****
>
> ** **
>
> Required?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:04 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Question on enc location****
>
> ** **
>
> In which case, it seems like it should be in the top level header, to
> avoid having it repeated every time. ****
>
> ** **
>
> In general, it seems like there are "content" parameters (e.g., enc, zip,
> cty) that should go at the top level, and "key" parameters that should be
> per-recipient (e.g., alg, epk, salt).  It would be helpful to implementors
> to be clear about what goes where. ****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2013, Mike Jones wrote:****
>
> No – just that the “enc” field for all recipients be the same.****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf
> Of *Jim Schaad
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:33 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [jose] Question on enc location****
>
>  ****
>
> Is there supposed to be a requirement in the JWE specification that the
> enc field be in the common protected (or unprotected) header and no in the
> individual recipient header information?****
>
>  ****
>
> Jim****
>
>  ****
>