Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

Ok, fine.  :)

I can buy that it needs to be there for key derivation in the combined
cases (e.g., ECDH-ES+A128GCM).  The need to specify key length at
generation time is not a JOSE issue.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

> We need to keep key lengths in algorithm ids for the purpose of key
> derivation.  Additionally there would need to be some way to signal the key
> length to the system when doing key generation****
>
> ** **
>
> i.e. you would need to change****
>
> jose.SetCEKAlgorithm(“AES128”) to****
>
> jose.SetCEKAlgoirthm(“AES”, 128)****
>
> ** **
>
> jim****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Richard Barnes
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2013 9:47 AM
> *To:* John Bradley
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys****
>
> ** **
>
> Or we could just remove the key lengths from the algorithm IDs altogether
> ;)  They really don't add any value.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone****
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Richard had previously requested that we register algorithm identifiers
> for AES using 192 bit keys.  As he previously pointed out, “It seems like
> if we're going to support AES, then we should support AES.  Every AES
> library I know of supports all three key lengths, so it's not like there's
> extra cost besides the registry entry.”  (I’ll note that we already have
> algorithm identifiers for the “mid-size” HMAC and signature functions
> “HS384”, “RS384”, and “ES384”.)****
>
>  ****
>
> I heard no objections at the time.  I’m therefore thinking that we should
> register algorithm identifiers for these key sizes as well.  Specifically,
> we would add:****
>
> “A192KW”, “ECDH-ES+A192KW”, “A192GCMKW”, “PBES2-HS256+A192KW”,
> “A192CBC-HS384”, and “A192GCM”.  Support for these algorithms would be
> optional.****
>
>  ****
>
> What do people think?****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
> ** **
>