IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 21 October 2014 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1E91AD0A7; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w7ukZtqWm8Hz; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6971AD0B5; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id p9so523173lbv.21 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GYKy/G3tRjSPyo+kexAw/eAi9oGCR1PbQQGjg9qaIeA=; b=pqu9Up0Lhl61ih1bn7qqTKH+pW4S7Ieuc1ceoA3W/l3/HcGVx5tzEZYof8ojAURsqk bjQn6vWExKa/+O5f1BWKezdXSjNWZEmLWRpQ4z5uTx4ammjOKgQK+caZKmGTqTiUEnOl xsbB2bfu9DIz0Dxmz5JTqFOE2NT+qW58+htzL5t3YSz3Ta/YcR0U5DdiOJjQLagfouDJ 4Gstfa32bwAAHjPcQSKOZEVV9uD3E8nxPubWo1OqG40CyHOFXZuzFASQygdABH8PeGvk NOz0leTQjknl0R2diDWGd84a7IDlAT5GTzeZdE+vtwIOHZ7k+gIftn8KVvrmcjkJeLhA AORg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.221.226 with SMTP id qh2mr32941788lbc.5.1413878553505; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.215.217 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54453E25.3030705@cisco.com>
References: <20141002033659.31345.52942.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAFAE6C@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgQh8cW_ye-E16fYYKDMco7W8q-sHVDFpvUUeS+CqPm30Q@mail.gmail.com> <54453E25.3030705@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:02:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUoiB1WWT-jCD6LZpxtXMEztOX0Y0emqazb_C_ZcMZ4bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: ⌘ Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/UjSh4F19D-wcYO_JLbvFsUP3F4s
Cc: "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:02:54 -0000

On 20 October 2014 09:53, ⌘ Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
> As I think I've said in previous discussions about the JSON
> serialization, I can live with something verbose *BUT* would rather
> like a lighter syntax for the single-encrypt JSON serialization.
> While multiple recipients is not quite as rare in encryption as it is
> for signing, single-encrypt is still the more common usecase, and so
> optimizing for it seems like a good thing.

I've had a similar concern.  Multiple recipients is more the exception.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email