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?

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 B0D8D21F96D7 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.06
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.06 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 xTInuWYN8Ovq for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-x232.google.com (mail-gg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A9E21F96D5 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-gg0-f178.google.com with SMTP id e5so789114ggh.23 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=10vN2nFOkKzgIGwttCCTDNtj2diRzBDm2xJ5YT9FhgQ=; b=jA8uW3R9LvY4qpEwNv2CLFrtX1iuZznwsugyMCcLrFEQlxq6de9QUHtYmXGUDQXO6L +UziWgfWKV5+OICfg0/mBXM0DUwUb4EZva1D394DvT2ZEfa4VS1X2vNwrWQdWSMLgX1q 3t+4o3h6Lq6/04rEtGFGec1Ibjk/YQ6wBm3Q/Hj5CryOk1ikAYuG+q8iv2swdWRGslBC /IVx/qnVRyfaDsJwVys9Lz4NwRSesASL7VjjVNHAph4fQI8gCmsn9cRerafX3b4qpfqS RuMI4PPHU4XSLp6b+zluXU0mJC8ULEQCfdCkcBcilY9QMLYYjNgxCu5KZgwNbpnQ9S/v uzaA==
X-Received: by 10.236.71.227 with SMTP id r63mr12816862yhd.182.1366051343458; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.39] (190-20-46-232.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.46.232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s45sm29753018yhk.22.2013.04.15.11.42.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CDF8EA04-8905-472D-B7F6-9E7C66873AA6"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:41:59 -0300
Message-Id: <71C65BBC-A7CB-4A5A-AE85-20650203F2FB@ve7jtb.com>
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnPgqJhjbTpOgCz1tBtS733QDg4q1DEIkYGuChWfLqNLiRtA3MDlmz2pCBRh9//6uiWMDEr
Cc: jose@ietf.org
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:42:24 -0000

1 ish.

Representing the nonce/IV separately should not preclude using a crypto library generated nonce/IV , as may be done in some libraries implementing  draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2.

So I am in favour of the current serialization while wanting to support the crypto from  draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 if not the particular serialization which is optimized for a different use-case.   The current draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 conflates crypto and serialization.  I am hoping we can resolve that so the crypto can be supported.

John B.

On 2013-04-11, at 8:58 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:

> Issue #11 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/11 proposes restructuring the JWE representation to remove the JWE Integrity Value field and instead use the RFC 5116 (AEAD) binary serialization to represent the Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values.  If this proposal is adopted, JWEs would then have three fields – the header, the encrypted key, and the RFC 5116 combination of the Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and Integrity Value values. 
> This issue is also related to issue #3.  Note that the updated McGrew draft described there could be used whether or not we switched to using RFC 5116.
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th or earlier. 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email