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?

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.com>
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 B0DDB21F95CE for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 xhxXEUXy0jwU for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0243.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A80F21F95B4 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD009.protection.gbl (10.173.161.204) by BL2FFO11HUB008.protection.gbl (10.173.160.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:46 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD009.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:45 +0000
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (157.54.51.113) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:16 +0000
Received: from mail93-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.240) by VA3EHSOBE011.bigfish.com (10.7.40.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:27 +0000
Received: from mail93-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail93-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854FA340152 for <jose@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.240.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0310HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -17
X-BigFish: PS-17(zz9371I542Idb82hzz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1082kz97hz1033IL17326ah8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail93-va3: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 157.56.240.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.21; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=BL2PRD0310HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:SKI; SFS:; DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:-1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB042; H:BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; LANG:en;
Received: from mail93-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail93-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1366044265895533_21460; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.239]) by mail93-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D594E4E004C; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0310HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.21) by VA3EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (10.7.99.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:25 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB042.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.146) by BL2PRD0310HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.97.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.299.2; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:25 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.145) by BY2PR03MB042.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.241.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.670.13; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:23 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.206]) by BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.18]) with mapi id 15.00.0670.000; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:23 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
Thread-Index: AQHONxCrjB2uAx910k6YT26ah4boZ5jUiWKAgALh6QCAABeFEA==
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:44:22 +0000
Message-ID: <354223120e2d40b0aea99253c7a15400@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org> <92D56D5A-C8E3-4143-9976-409D3E6975C3@adm.umu.se> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367641218@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367641218@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [77.48.62.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: BY2PR03MB042.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%ISOC.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(13464002)(199002)(189002)(377454001)(31966008)(79102001)(46406003)(15202345002)(54356001)(6806002)(50986001)(1511001)(33646001)(63696002)(47976001)(46102001)(81542001)(53806001)(47446002)(59766001)(49866001)(5343655001)(51856001)(54316002)(56776001)(56816002)(74502001)(81342001)(561944001)(20776003)(74662001)(47776003)(66066001)(4396001)(69226001)(80022001)(77982001)(65816001)(50466001)(23726002)(16676001)(47736001)(44976003)(76482001)(42262001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB008; H:TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0817737FD1
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:49 -0000

1

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:20 AM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

1.  Continue having separate Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values in the JWE representation.

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hedberg
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:19 PM
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

1

12 apr 2013 kl. 01:58 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>:

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. 
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email