Re: [jose] jwk

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

"x5c" helps because you can represent a bare key as a self-signed cert in PEM format in the "x5c" parameter.  The JOSE specs already support PEM-encoded keys.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Axel Nennker [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:14 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: jwk

In the case where I generate the keypair on the fly I do not have an URL to put in x5u. And a cert in not a public key. I want bare keys.
I don't know how x5u and x5c help here.

I have the problem that I don't know how to convert (exp,mod) into a pubkey on one platform (Firefox). I think that PEM is easier.
I think the same might be true an other platforms too.

Another reason I think that PEM is better is that there are command line tools to produce PEM-encoded keys while I don't know any tool to produce (exp, mod).

--Axel
2012/10/24 Mike Jones <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

To be clear, JWS and JWE already support the use of PEM encoded keys through the "x5c" and "x5u" parameters.  Therefore, I don't see any need to also add X.509-based key formats to JWK itself.



                                                            -- Mike

From: Axel Nennker [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:55 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Mike Jones
Subject: jwk


I think that having more choices other than (xpo, mod) is useful.
I believe that it is easier for me to implement keys in Firefox if I have PEM encoded keys.

So the format could be:

user_jwk : {"pub": "MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4OTqe0p1tgEoOVtDzjQI yP1Ipo8ivqTIeH4yH9kLzI4fCKx6ggZJ3h9ecj4p5E355umCThN/1doBc/tq18VGlNtyDNxCh45Z1zGYJKwZxaVaWQXlB2gfgnko1D+Zw9KIlipQHtnhJw/qREEIp4YOgaGcSZBCcQQ4DYCOjfTTbKUXSTlrlOgflfgTiyhUFuiKWkoeivwASigL76PtYNYc n+dlYKYB/vSQ2CY7FtaDcr22EdqUDVPLNg1+K1rsvHvllP7iTnXA5IgxT5JELdrk KX9Ek68zDzelOaJxs2tbkkwbqSLQfREzQ/yGAIOW9rZVqlaVBEBzUYzREmeybVq3 gwIDAQAB" }
// PEM encoded public key without linebreaks

A more general format would be:

jwk: { "-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----": "MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4OTqe0p1tgEoOVtDzjQI yP1Ipo8ivqTIeH4yH9kLzI4fCKx6ggZJ3h9ecj4p5E355umCThN/1doBc/tq18VGlNtyDNxCh45Z1zGYJKwZxaVaWQXlB2gfgnko1D+Zw9KIlipQHtnhJw/qREEIp4YOgaGcSZBCcQQ4DYCOjfTTbKUXSTlrlOgflfgTiyhUFuiKWkoeivwASigL76PtYNYc n+dlYKYB/vSQ2CY7FtaDcr22EdqUDVPLNg1+K1rsvHvllP7iTnXA5IgxT5JELdrk KX9Ek68zDzelOaJxs2tbkkwbqSLQfREzQ/yGAIOW9rZVqlaVBEBzUYzREmeybVq3 gwIDAQAB"
}

This general format could be used for private keys too.

What do you think?

Axel

ps: Don't know whether I can post from this email address.... Mike, would you lease post it if it does appear in your inbox but not on the list. Thanks.