IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Tue, 19 March 2013 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.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 5EC9B21F8A6F for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 mF29cbd2ZN2q for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9542321F8A6E for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4583; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363702797; x=1364912397; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=SZr5gZ2BkwlsLbhSnfInkqxW3n72FbTp7DZ6sOQUIwE=; b=fuDowXavr+0la8v3yX5HfoayZHYJsBPpQnJQiogwU4tH28HinOeWchsJ EbbW9erGLTAqYX4jivtlIClQIGdEdMQf60osT4CrHLXj2+k1kocXs6IAK J7TOQXn+noNp5lkPfdC4tmn1l2rUXzpLSnPB4Ebk4KDZ8KrkvyBOmfGCQ 0=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2283
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAKxzSFGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABDxRSBVhZtB4IkAQEBAwEdYQsCAQgiJAIwJQIEEwgGiAAGsjGQIo5dOIJfYQOPPIEoln2DCoIo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,872,1355097600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="189075212"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2013 14:19:57 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2JEJuCp008195 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:19:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.203]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:19:56 -0500
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations
Thread-Index: AQHOJKx8FqJE351Np0SzIVUR6z+Zd5itZCEA
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:19:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411517BBE0@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411517BB87@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411517BB87@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.61]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_865091FE-DD56-4A13-80ED-7CB979526480"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [jose] JWK Parameter Registry Considerations
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:19:58 -0000

On Mar 19, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:

> In thinking about the JWK parameter registry, I have a couple of questions/concerns.
> 
> 1) Should JWK parameter names be absolutely unique, or are they potentially tied to a specific JWK type?  In looking at the specs to date, I think there's only one case where a parameter name is re-used ("d" for both private RSA and ECC keys); currently syntactically and semantically identical, but I'm not sure that's adequate.
> 
> 2) Should JWK parameters be marked as private (confidential, secret, privileged, etc etc)?  The current documentation set loosely defines this only because they are current split between multiple documents.  However, I wonder if there is value in being much more explicit about it, including in a parameter's registration.
> 
> 

And, yes, I do (now) remember there was a general call for merging JPSK into JWA (-:


- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email