Re: [jose] Keys in the documents

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian Campbell
<bcampbell@pingidentity.com>wrote:

> I like this change and think it will make it much more straightforward to
> consume the examples.
>
> One thing I noticed though, in Section 5.3.2 of JWA "JWK Parameters for
> RSA Private Keys" [1] it says that all the members (excepting "oth") are
> required for private keys.
>
> However the example JWK RSA keys in JWE [2] and JWS [3] only have the "d"
> (Private Exponent) Parameter part of the private portion.
>
> Can we relax/change JWA to say something like "d" is always required and
> either all of others (with the caveat for "oth") are required to be there
> together or that they all need to be omitted?
>
> The Private Exponent is all that's functionally needed, right? And the
> rest are optimizations? I honestly don't know much (okay anything) about
> CRT vs plain old RSA keys. But it seems like there are cases where it'd be
> totally reasonable to have just the "d" - and the examples in JWS and JWE
> seem to make that point.
>

Yes.  This change should be made.  Technically, only the modulus (n) and
private exponent (d) are required.  So the requirement levels for a private
key would be:
n, d: MUST
e: SHOULD (so that you can derive the corresponding public key)
p,q,dp,dq,qi: MAY (since these are all optimizations)

--Richard

>
> [1]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.2
> [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-13#appendix-A.1.4
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-13#appendix-A.2.1
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:
>
>>  FYI – this was done in the -12 drafts.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:58 AM
>> *To:* Matt Miller (mamille2); Richard Barnes
>>
>> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
>> jose@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [jose] Keys in the documents****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>> Will do.****
>>   ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *Matt Miller (mamille2)
>> *Sent: *6/21/2013 6:06 AM
>> *To: *Richard Barnes
>> *Cc: *Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
>> jose@ietf.org
>> *Subject: *Re: [jose] Keys in the documents
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is there any reason not to provide the public and private keys in the
>> >> appendixes as JWK objects?  This would make them easier to understand
>> and
>> >> put them into a format that one expects to be understood by JOSE
>> systems.*
>> >> ***
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> Jim****
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>>
>> - m&m
>>
>> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
>> Cisco Systems, Inc.****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> jose@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>
>>
>

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian Campbell
<bcampbell@pingidentity.com>wrote:

> I like this change and think it will make it much more straightforward to
> consume the examples.
>
> One thing I noticed though, in Section 5.3.2 of JWA "JWK Parameters for
> RSA Private Keys" [1] it says that all the members (excepting "oth") are
> required for private keys.
>
> However the example JWK RSA keys in JWE [2] and JWS [3] only have the "d"
> (Private Exponent) Parameter part of the private portion.
>
> Can we relax/change JWA to say something like "d" is always required and
> either all of others (with the caveat for "oth") are required to be there
> together or that they all need to be omitted?
>
> The Private Exponent is all that's functionally needed, right? And the
> rest are optimizations? I honestly don't know much (okay anything) about
> CRT vs plain old RSA keys. But it seems like there are cases where it'd be
> totally reasonable to have just the "d" - and the examples in JWS and JWE
> seem to make that point.
>
> [1]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.2
> [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-13#appendix-A.1.4
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-13#appendix-A.2.1
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:
>
>>  FYI – this was done in the -12 drafts.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:58 AM
>> *To:* Matt Miller (mamille2); Richard Barnes
>>
>> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
>> jose@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [jose] Keys in the documents****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>> Will do.****
>>   ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *Matt Miller (mamille2)
>> *Sent: *6/21/2013 6:06 AM
>> *To: *Richard Barnes
>> *Cc: *Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org;
>> jose@ietf.org
>> *Subject: *Re: [jose] Keys in the documents
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is there any reason not to provide the public and private keys in the
>> >> appendixes as JWK objects?  This would make them easier to understand
>> and
>> >> put them into a format that one expects to be understood by JOSE
>> systems.*
>> >> ***
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> Jim****
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>>
>> - m&m
>>
>> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
>> Cisco Systems, Inc.****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> jose@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>
>>
>