Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

1


On 04/16/2013 10:24 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> I'm confused.  This is not about the IV == Initialization Vector, it's 
> about the JWE Integrity Value (inconveniently also "IV").  I don't 
> think anyone has proposed merging in the initialization vector, both 
> because that's not what RFC 5116 does and because it's a terrible idea :)
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com 
> <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
>
>     1 ish.
>
>     Representing the nonce/IV separately should not preclude using a
>     crypto library generated nonce/IV , as may be done in some
>     libraries implementing  draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2.
>
>     So I am in favour of the current serialization while wanting to
>     support the crypto from  draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 if
>     not the particular serialization which is optimized for
>     a different use-case.   The current
>     draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 conflates crypto and
>     serialization.  I am hoping we can resolve that so the crypto can
>     be supported.
>
>     John B.
>
>     On 2013-04-11, at 8:58 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org
>     <mailto:odonoghue@isoc.org>> wrote:
>
>>     Issue #11 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/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 19^th or earlier.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     jose mailing list
>>     jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     jose mailing list
>     jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose