IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg@adm.umu.se> Sat, 13 April 2013 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.hedberg@adm.umu.se>
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 484D621F8E8E for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 I1LjwrAko4QW for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ad.umu.se (umdac-ch2.ad.umu.se [130.239.1.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C5F21F8E6D for <jose@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UMDAC-CCR1.ad.umu.se ([169.254.1.121]) by UMDAC-CH2.ad.umu.se ([130.239.1.247]) with mapi; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:18:26 +0200
From: Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg@adm.umu.se>
To: "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:19:03 +0200
Thread-Topic: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
Thread-Index: Ac44e6ypF+sL5MyOQAed3Rlf+wrAbQ==
Message-ID: <92D56D5A-C8E3-4143-9976-409D3E6975C3@adm.umu.se>
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, sv-SE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, sv-SE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?
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: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:19:34 -0000

1

12 apr 2013 kl. 01:58 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>:

> Issue #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 19th or earlier. 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email