IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] jwk

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@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 C49D821F88E7 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.042
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJiUvdEZ94ie for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NA01-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-bl2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92A521F86D8 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD012.protection.gbl (10.173.161.201) by BL2FFO11HUB040.protection.gbl (10.173.160.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.545.8; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:15:22 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD012.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.545.8 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:15:21 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.15]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:14:58 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Axel Nennker <ignisvulpis@gmail.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: jwk
Thread-Index: AQHNsiF/w0zq/rO+/0GqJ4iKlhRQdpfI5BAg
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:14:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436687BCEB@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CAHcDwFziH9QF1TgbywGzi2VPiwADpgdOxzrN1xtTN2pjLJOXOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHcDwFziH9QF1TgbywGzi2VPiwADpgdOxzrN1xtTN2pjLJOXOw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436687BCEBTK5EX14MBXC285r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(51444002)(47446002)(15202345001)(31966008)(74502001)(74662001)(16826001)(20776001)(16696001)(46102001)(44976002)(8716001)(512954001)(54316001)(54356001)(53806001)(3846001)(47736001)(51856001)(50986001)(1076001)(4396001)(47976001)(4196001)(49866001)(2666001)(16406001)(5343635001)(33656001)(5343655001)(316001)(3746001)(3556001); DIR:OUT; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0644578634
Subject: Re: [jose] jwk
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, 24 Oct 2012 20:15:31 -0000

To be clear, JWS and JWE already support the use of PEM encoded keys through the "x5c" and "x5u" parameters.  Therefore, I don't see any need to also add X.509-based key formats to JWK itself.



                                                            -- Mike

From: Axel Nennker [mailto:ignisvulpis@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:55 PM
To: jose@ietf.org
Cc: Mike Jones
Subject: jwk


I think that having more choices other than (xpo, mod) is useful.
I believe that it is easier for me to implement keys in Firefox if I have PEM encoded keys.

So the format could be:

user_jwk : {"pub": "MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4OTqe0p1tgEoOVtDzjQI yP1Ipo8ivqTIeH4yH9kLzI4fCKx6ggZJ3h9ecj4p5E355umCThN/1doBc/tq18VGlNtyDNxCh45Z1zGYJKwZxaVaWQXlB2gfgnko1D+Zw9KIlipQHtnhJw/qREEIp4YOgaGcSZBCcQQ4DYCOjfTTbKUXSTlrlOgflfgTiyhUFuiKWkoeivwASigL76PtYNYc n+dlYKYB/vSQ2CY7FtaDcr22EdqUDVPLNg1+K1rsvHvllP7iTnXA5IgxT5JELdrk KX9Ek68zDzelOaJxs2tbkkwbqSLQfREzQ/yGAIOW9rZVqlaVBEBzUYzREmeybVq3 gwIDAQAB" }
// PEM encoded public key without linebreaks

A more general format would be:

jwk: { "-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----": "MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4OTqe0p1tgEoOVtDzjQI yP1Ipo8ivqTIeH4yH9kLzI4fCKx6ggZJ3h9ecj4p5E355umCThN/1doBc/tq18VGlNtyDNxCh45Z1zGYJKwZxaVaWQXlB2gfgnko1D+Zw9KIlipQHtnhJw/qREEIp4YOgaGcSZBCcQQ4DYCOjfTTbKUXSTlrlOgflfgTiyhUFuiKWkoeivwASigL76PtYNYc n+dlYKYB/vSQ2CY7FtaDcr22EdqUDVPLNg1+K1rsvHvllP7iTnXA5IgxT5JELdrk KX9Ek68zDzelOaJxs2tbkkwbqSLQfREzQ/yGAIOW9rZVqlaVBEBzUYzREmeybVq3 gwIDAQAB"
}

This general format could be used for private keys too.

What do you think?

Axel

ps: Don't know whether I can post from this email address.... Mike, would you lease post it if it does appear in your inbox but not on the list. Thanks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email