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?

"Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS" <vladimir@nimbusds.com> Fri, 19 April 2013 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir@nimbusds.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 9CC4F21F86CA for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
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 Sns1OwcKZhNg for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from n1plwbeout07-02.prod.ams1.secureserver.net (n1plsmtp07-02-02.prod.ams1.secureserver.net [188.121.52.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A2A8821F86AE for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28753 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2013 14:49:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (188.121.52.244) by n1plwbeout07-02.prod.ams1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 19 Apr 2013 14:49:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 24356 invoked by uid 99); 19 Apr 2013 14:49:21 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 77.85.85.163
User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 5.6.36
Message-Id: <20130419074920.cc40c4f3d92d2001859047cd8cabb9ab.466b8f0310.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
From: Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS <vladimir@nimbusds.com>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org, jose@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:20 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:49:23 -0000

1. Separate ciphertext, IV and integrity value fields.

--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : vladimir@nimbusds.com
 

   
 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email