Re: [jose] Keys in the documents

I like this change and think it will make it much more straightforward to
consume the examples.

One thing I noticed though, in Section 5.3.2 of JWA "JWK Parameters for RSA
Private Keys" [1] it says that all the members (excepting "oth") are
required for private keys.

However the example JWK RSA keys in JWE [2] and JWS [3] only have the "d"
(Private Exponent) Parameter part of the private portion.

Can we relax/change JWA to say something like "d" is always required and
either all of others (with the caveat for "oth") are required to be there
together or that they all need to be omitted?

The Private Exponent is all that's functionally needed, right? And the rest
are optimizations? I honestly don't know much (okay anything) about CRT vs
plain old RSA keys. But it seems like there are cases where it'd be totally
reasonable to have just the "d" - and the examples in JWS and JWE seem to
make that point.

[1]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.2
[2]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-13#appendix-A.1.4
[3]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-13#appendix-A.2.1

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  FYI – this was done in the -12 drafts.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:58 AM
> *To:* Matt Miller (mamille2); Richard Barnes
>
> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
> jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [jose] Keys in the documents****
>
>  ** **
>
> Will do.****
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Matt Miller (mamille2)
> *Sent: *6/21/2013 6:06 AM
> *To: *Richard Barnes
> *Cc: *Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
> jose@ietf.org
> *Subject: *Re: [jose] Keys in the documents
>
> +1
>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any reason not to provide the public and private keys in the
> >> appendixes as JWK objects?  This would make them easier to understand
> and
> >> put them into a format that one expects to be understood by JOSE
> systems.*
> >> ***
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Jim****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
>
> - m&m
>
> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
> Cisco Systems, Inc.****
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>