Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

We need to keep key lengths in algorithm ids for the purpose of key
derivation.  Additionally there would need to be some way to signal the key
length to the system when doing key generation

i.e. you would need to change

jose.SetCEKAlgorithm("AES128") to

jose.SetCEKAlgoirthm("AES", 128)

jim

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Barnes
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:47 AM
To: John Bradley
Cc: Mike Jones; jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

Or we could just remove the key lengths from the algorithm IDs altogether ;)
They really don't add any value.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:

Richard had previously requested that we register algorithm identifiers for
AES using 192 bit keys.  As he previously pointed out, "It seems like if
we're going to support AES, then we should support AES.  Every AES library I
know of supports all three key lengths, so it's not like there's extra cost
besides the registry entry."  (I'll note that we already have algorithm
identifiers for the "mid-size" HMAC and signature functions "HS384",
"RS384", and "ES384".)

I heard no objections at the time.  I'm therefore thinking that we should
register algorithm identifiers for these key sizes as well.  Specifically,
we would add:

"A192KW", "ECDH-ES+A192KW", "A192GCMKW", "PBES2-HS256+A192KW",
"A192CBC-HS384", and "A192GCM".  Support for these algorithms would be
optional.

What do people think?

                                                            -- Mike

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose