Re: [jose] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: (with COMMENT)

Mike Jones <> Mon, 29 September 2014 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5131ACD72; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cZn3YROcobs7; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86EE1ACD70; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1039.15; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:43:07 +0000
Received: from (2a01:111:f400:7c0c::134) by (2a01:111:e400:2c5d::52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1039.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:43:01 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1029.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:43:00 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.002; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:42:07 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>, The IESG <>
Thread-Topic: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHP22Nh/Ooxbo9Z6kW9ar3u5z04qZwYtUuw
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:42:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAA14D8TK5EX14MBXC288r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(438002)(52044002)(189002)(13464003)(377454003)(199003)(84326002)(15975445006)(68736004)(33656002)(19625215002)(77096002)(81156004)(106466001)(46102003)(97736003)(120916001)(230783001)(106116001)(99396003)(10300001)(85306004)(80022003)(85852003)(21056001)(95666004)(31966008)(92566001)(16236675004)(66066001)(6806004)(54356999)(92726001)(19580395003)(84676001)(44976005)(19580405001)(71186001)(512874002)(4396001)(86362001)(86612001)(76482002)(19300405004)(76176999)(107046002)(64706001)(2656002)(50986999)(104016003)(15202345003)(26826002)(20776003)(69596002)(55846006)(87936001)(19617315012); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0301MB1207;; FPR:; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0301MB1207;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 034902F5BC
Received-SPF: Pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender); client-ip=;;
Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is;
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [jose] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:43:11 -0000

Thanks for your review, Alissa.  I’ve added the working group to this thread so they're aware of your comments.  Replies are inline below…

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper []
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 2:30 PM
To: The IESG
Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to

for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:




== Section 3.4 ==

"Signing and validation with the ECDSA P-384 SHA-384 and ECDSA P-521

  SHA-512 algorithms is performed identically to the procedure for

  ECDSA P-256 SHA-256 -- just using the corresponding hash algorithms

  with correspondingly larger result values.  For ECDSA P-384 SHA-384,

  R and S will be 384 bits each, resulting in a 96 octet sequence.  For

  ECDSA P-521 SHA-512, R and S will be 521 bits each, resulting in a

  132 octet sequence."

For the ECDSA P-521 SHA-512 case, how does the result amount to 132 octets? Is there padding inserted into R and S?

The P-521 curve uses 521-bit R and S values.  It takes 66 octets to represent 521 bits.  There are two 66-octet values, hence 132 octets.

== Section 7 ==

Do we use<>? I usually use<>.

== Section 8.4 ==

"An Initialization Vector value MUST never be used multiple times with

   the same AES GCM key."

I think what was intended here was s/MUST never/MUST NOT/

Agreed.  To keep the same level of emphasis, I propose to change “MUST never” to “MUST NOT ever”.

                                                            -- Mike