Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 09:14 UTC

Received-SPF: pass (mail129-tx2: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types
Thread-Index: Ac6NBEzmCN9N3RpfREyDdDnJ6ah39Q==
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:08:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B730979@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B730979TK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types
Precedence: list

Draft -14 now says "members that are common to multiple key types".  And the incorrectly numbered sections are actually gone.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Mike Jones
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:55 PM
To: 'Brian Campbell'; jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types

Thanks for noticing this.  How about "members that are common to all public key types"?

You're right about the section numbering.  I'll fix that.

                                                            Thanks again,
                                                            -- Mike

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:34 PM
To: jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
Subject: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types

Section 3 of JWK [1] defines "members that are common to all key types" and includes among those members x5c, x5u and x5t. However, the x5X parameters are relevant only for half the key types defined in JWA - they don't really make sense for "oct" [2] or "PBKDF2" [3].
Not sure the best way to address this but it seems kind of awkward as it is. Maybe move them into the EC and RSA type definitions (or something common to both) or somehow add some qualifying text saying that they can only be used with key types utilizing public keys?
As I was looking up the URLs below I noticed that the section alignment in section 5 of JWA is a little off. I think 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 should probably be 5.4 and 5.5 respectively. Right now they line up as though they were part of the RSA key type.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-13#section-3
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.3
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.4

Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key t… Mike Jones
[jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types Brian Campbell
Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key t… Mike Jones
Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key t… Brian Campbell
Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key t… Brian Campbell
Re: [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key t… Mike Jones