Re: [jose] Keys in the documents

Looks good to me. Thanks.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  -14 now describes which RSA key parameters are there to enable
> optimizations, and states that their presence is RECOMMENDED, and that if
> any are present, all must be present (yes, with special language for the
> case of 3 or more prime factors).****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:rlb@ipv.sx <rlb@ipv.sx>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:21 PM
> *To:* Brian Campbell
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; Matt Miller (mamille2); Jim Schaad; jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] Keys in the documents****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian Campbell <
> bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:****
>
>   I like this change and think it will make it much more straightforward
> to consume the examples.****
>
> One thing I noticed though, in Section 5.3.2 of JWA "JWK Parameters for
> RSA Private Keys" [1] it says that all the members (excepting "oth") are
> required for private keys. ****
>
> However the example JWK RSA keys in JWE [2] and JWS [3] only have the "d"
> (Private Exponent) Parameter part of the private portion. ****
>
> Can we relax/change JWA to say something like "d" is always required and
> either all of others (with the caveat for "oth") are required to be there
> together or that they all need to be omitted? ****
>
> The Private Exponent is all that's functionally needed, right? And the
> rest are optimizations? I honestly don't know much (okay anything) about
> CRT vs plain old RSA keys. But it seems like there are cases where it'd be
> totally reasonable to have just the "d" - and the examples in JWS and JWE
> seem to make that point.****
>
>  ** **
>
> Yes.  This change should be made.  Technically, only the modulus (n) and
> private exponent (d) are required.  So the requirement levels for a private
> key would be:****
>
> n, d: MUST****
>
> e: SHOULD (so that you can derive the corresponding public key)****
>
> p,q,dp,dq,qi: MAY (since these are all optimizations)****
>
> ** **
>
> --Richard****
>
>  ****
>
>
> [1]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.2
> [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-13#appendix-A.1.4
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-13#appendix-A.2.1
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>   FYI – this was done in the -12 drafts.****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] ****
>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:58 AM****
>
> *To:* Matt Miller (mamille2); Richard Barnes****
>
>
> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
> jose@ietf.org****
>
> *Subject:* RE: [jose] Keys in the documents****
>
>  ****
>
> Will do.****
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Matt Miller (mamille2)
> *Sent: *6/21/2013 6:06 AM
> *To: *Richard Barnes
> *Cc: *Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
> jose@ietf.org
> *Subject: *Re: [jose] Keys in the documents
>
> +1
>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any reason not to provide the public and private keys in the
> >> appendixes as JWK objects?  This would make them easier to understand
> and
> >> put them into a format that one expects to be understood by JOSE
> systems.*
> >> ***
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Jim****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
>
> - m&m
>
> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
> Cisco Systems, Inc.****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>
>  ** **
>
>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian Campbell <
> bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:****
>
> I like this change and think it will make it much more straightforward to
> consume the examples.****
>
> One thing I noticed though, in Section 5.3.2 of JWA "JWK Parameters for
> RSA Private Keys" [1] it says that all the members (excepting "oth") are
> required for private keys. ****
>
> However the example JWK RSA keys in JWE [2] and JWS [3] only have the "d"
> (Private Exponent) Parameter part of the private portion. ****
>
> Can we relax/change JWA to say something like "d" is always required and
> either all of others (with the caveat for "oth") are required to be there
> together or that they all need to be omitted? ****
>
> The Private Exponent is all that's functionally needed, right? And the
> rest are optimizations? I honestly don't know much (okay anything) about
> CRT vs plain old RSA keys. But it seems like there are cases where it'd be
> totally reasonable to have just the "d" - and the examples in JWS and JWE
> seem to make that point.
>
> [1]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.2
> [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-13#appendix-A.1.4
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-13#appendix-A.2.1
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>   FYI – this was done in the -12 drafts.****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] ****
>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:58 AM****
>
> *To:* Matt Miller (mamille2); Richard Barnes****
>
>
> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
> jose@ietf.org****
>
> *Subject:* RE: [jose] Keys in the documents****
>
>  ****
>
> Will do.****
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Matt Miller (mamille2)
> *Sent: *6/21/2013 6:06 AM
> *To: *Richard Barnes
> *Cc: *Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
> jose@ietf.org
> *Subject: *Re: [jose] Keys in the documents
>
> +1
>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any reason not to provide the public and private keys in the
> >> appendixes as JWK objects?  This would make them easier to understand
> and
> >> put them into a format that one expects to be understood by JOSE
> systems.*
> >> ***
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Jim****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
>
> - m&m
>
> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
> Cisco Systems, Inc.****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose****
>
>  ** **
>
> ** **
>