Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
"Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal@idmachines.com> Sat, 20 April 2013 02:41 UTC
Return-Path: <sal@idmachines.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 8A7E021F9164 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YUibSgYqCIea for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68A821F8F0F for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod1.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.116]) by atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3K2fQIp008856 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:41:26 -0400
Received: (qmail 32431 invoked by uid 0); 20 Apr 2013 02:41:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO salPC) (sal@idmachines.com@74.104.35.96) by 0 with ESMTPA; 20 Apr 2013 02:41:26 -0000
From: Salvatore D'Agostino <sal@idmachines.com>
To: jose@ietf.org
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org> <92D56D5A-C8E3-4143-9976-409D3E6975C3@adm.umu.se> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367641218@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <354223120e2d40b0aea99253c7a15400@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAK+KdNX7fkrhFjD=40wLvBbf0ma_qa-JbHU5zMidEEFABoVoLw@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1150C90EC77@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1150C90EC77@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:41:25 -0400
Message-ID: <06b501ce3d70$8d50fe50$a7f2faf0$@com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac471+vG40O8lGoASna9eh8B7NcgiQBmHDtA
Content-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_06B1_01CE3D4F.01F30EA0"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:41:28 -0000
1 Sal D'Agostino 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.
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Dick Hardt
- [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11:… Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Manger, James H
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Roland Hedberg
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… hideki nara
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… nov matake
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Edmund Jay
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Matias Woloski
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Matt Miller
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… John Bradley
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Russ Housley
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… charles.marais@orange.com
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… John Bradley
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Manger, James H
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Javier Rojas Blum
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Peck, Michael A
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Russ Housley
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue… Salvatore D'Agostino