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?

<Axel.Nennker@telekom.de> Fri, 12 April 2013 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Axel.Nennker@telekom.de>
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 D8DA321F8ACD for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 EH0t8JsgifJW for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F401821F8AA8 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from he113414.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.80]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 12 Apr 2013 08:15:00 +0200
Received: from HE100013.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.125.65.196) by HE113414.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.125.65.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:15:00 +0200
Received: from HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.90.94]) by HE100013.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([2002:769:41c4::769:41c4]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:14:59 +0200
From: Axel.Nennker@telekom.de
To: odonoghue@isoc.org, jose@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:14:58 +0200
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
Thread-Index: Ac43EIh1/Gy/W75BRgu5A6YmGwHVRgANIRjg
Message-ID: <CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF402553CF1621C@HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF402553CF1621CHE111541eme_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:15:04 -0000

1

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:59 AM
To: jose@ietf.org
Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email