Re: [jose] proposal: put encryption header parameters into a separate object

The "val" element in Barnes' proposal would need some parameters (typ, cty,
etc.) as well as the content in val:

{
  "enc": { /* encryption parameters */ },
  "sig": { /* signature parameters + value */ },
  "val": *{*/** content parameters +* plaintext */*}*
}

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:

> Hey Dick,
>
> To make sure I understand your use case correctly: You want to convey an
> encrypted object, as well as a signature over the plaintext (without having
> to encrypt the signature value).  Does that sound accurate?
>
> It seems like there are three types of information you want in the object:
> (1) cipher text, (2) encryption parameters, and (3) signature
> value/parameters.  So why not encapsulate it like that?  To propose a JSON
> syntax:
>
> {
>   "enc": { /* encryption parameters */ },
>   "sig": { /* signature parameters + value */ },
>   "val": "/* ciphertext */"
> }
>
> Obviously:
> -- JWE/JWS could be the special cases where only one of "enc" or "sig" is
> present
> -- This cleanly supports multiple signatures via multiple "sig" values
> (e.g., in an array)
> -- This cleanly supports multiple recipients via multiple "enc" values
> (e.g., in an array)
> -- You could leave one of "enc" or "sig" parameters as flat lists (as in
> JWS/JWE), but it seems cleaner to have them parallel
> -- For a compact serialization, you would want certain fields to be not
> double-base64'ed.  We can figure that out later :)
>
> This seems like kind of an appealing line of reasoning to me.  I would be
> glad to do some work on figuring out the details.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To enable encrypting and then signing of the same token, we need to
> specify the encrypting and signing algorithms separately.
> >
> > Since we are using JSON, how about if we create an encryption object to
> contain all the parameters defined in JWE so that there is no overlap in
> the JWS namespace.
> >
> > "enc":
> >       {  "alg"
> >       ,  "enc"
> >       ,  "zip"
> >       }
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>