Re: [jose] Issue #13 - use AES-GCM for Key Wrapping

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 25 June 2013 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 9172021E80A9 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 KQGMFWqeuFo3 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0235.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BA811E80FB for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN1BFFO11FD005.protection.gbl (10.58.52.200) by BN1AFFO11HUB033.protection.gbl (10.58.52.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.707.0; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:18:19 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1BFFO11FD005.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.53.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.707.0 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:18:18 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.25]) by TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.180]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:18:17 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: 'Jim Schaad' <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Issue #13 - use AES-GCM for Key Wrapping
Thread-Index: Ac5x+kWA5ynNruFyScOmFXp2dnVQrA==
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:18:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367898761@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.73]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367898761TK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(5383001)(377454003)(16236675002)(6806003)(79102001)(33656001)(76176001)(74662001)(15202345003)(47446002)(63696002)(56816003)(74502001)(76786001)(74366001)(46102001)(76796001)(51856001)(77096001)(20776003)(74876001)(74706001)(65816001)(81542001)(53806001)(69226001)(80022001)(31966008)(19300405004)(66066001)(512954002)(77982001)(59766001)(47736001)(76482001)(54316002)(55846006)(16406001)(49866001)(47976001)(50986001)(4396001)(54356001)(71186001)(56776001)(81342001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1AFFO11HUB033; H:TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0888B1D284
Subject: Re: [jose] Issue #13 - use AES-GCM for Key Wrapping
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:18:33 -0000

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-aes-gcm-key-wrap-00 seems like a substantially simpler approach than http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-key-wrapping-01.  This is evident by several metrics:

*         Number of proposed changes:  The Jones draft proposes no changes to any of the current specs.  It simply defines an encoding for GCM and adds registry entries for it.  Whereas the Barnes draft proposes a major restructuring - listing 4 major changes in the introduction and 4 smaller changes.

*         Normative text size:  The Jones GCM key wrap approach requires only 7 normative sentences in 1/2 page of text.  The Barnes draft has four pages of normative text, along with an extensive introduction describing the proposed complete restructuring of JWS and JWE.

We don't need to boil the ocean with a total redesign to enable AEAD key wrapping.  It can already easily be done with the current specs simply by defining new algorithms.  The approach taken in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-aes-gcm-key-wrap-00 would work for any AEAD algorithm.

                                                                -- Mike

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:53 AM
To: jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
Subject: [jose] Issue #13 - use AES-GCM for Key Wrapping

We now have two documents - one from Richard and one from Mike - which provide the two different ways that have been proposed for doing key wrapping with an AEAD algorithm.

Please review the two documents and provide comments to the list.

Jim