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?

"charles.marais@orange.com" <charles.marais@orange.com> Wed, 17 April 2013 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.marais@orange.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 101A721F8DC1 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.835, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42, TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_NAME_LONG=1.08]
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 pwulR-LMfOSj for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E94221F8D8D for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 689141074DDD for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:47:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6186F1074CC5 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:47:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:40:59 +0200
Received: from [10.193.13.83] ([10.193.13.83]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:40:59 +0200
Message-ID: <516E985B.3050903@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:40:59 +0200
From: "charles.marais@orange.com" <charles.marais@orange.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jose@ietf.org
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------060907020703080102000905"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2013 12:40:59.0776 (UTC) FILETIME=[D04E6800:01CE3B68]
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:41:03 -0000

Hi,

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

Br,

Charles Marais.

Le 12/04/2013 01:58, Karen O'Donoghue a écrit :
Issue #11 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/11" rel="nofollow"> 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" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

--

MARAIS Charles
FT/OLNC/OLPS/ASE/IDEA/UED
Tel : 02.96.05.24.18
charles.marais@orange.com
WF004Bis / R&D Lannion / 2, avenue Pierre Marzin / 22307 LANNION Cedex - France



v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email