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?

Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <edmundjay@sbcglobal.net>
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 1740C21F95C3 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, 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 z4CFaKtXnW7A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm23.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm23.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F99F21F958B for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.94.237.126] by nm23.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Apr 2013 18:04:55 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.116] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Apr 2013 18:04:55 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1021.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Apr 2013 18:04:55 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 556492.10176.bm@omp1021.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 65732 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Apr 2013 18:04:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1366049095; bh=FNNUVRpFlhMtqYuzuInKao5+R6eXcNEkD9YtTg+/dN0=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZPU5QjSiQsYKWBi2YYXXJZrdRctplzFAatLzaKuhdhCmcYcg2PLJptcIreu3VfM4lNN12KNyHrPQZ+yTAaLYVPXg48KyCrrWaRMBwJTh4ADJjqMre8JeIpL4uypRQS8bR7vH/rvHFD/Umprpyr4PqAul2w8rn7blvsDITjHc/8g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KcCgFDHB2YYp7mV9kuEDO+lVQRsLx1a9x++dPNt+bVz3sgF4xOYOA+5ik87482nzHwIV7pmfqdnlk0q1ubLD7/6XzvfCCSdv+M3fHjF/mdDZiTU33u7e4z79UAMlLzR+KMfmLAzMq4SFmowwZdZnHggS3znBaDLCoevdeGiFVn0=;
X-YMail-OSG: hEhOogAVM1kwqfS3fapSqI7pOrGCEzTE2ZQKgNpvgn3Ig9B sahdBaG8cihD.o_2NRXVf3QgmYwgLeMBCeTTRuy5V0zLhr_nPq5OM8TPI3rk P8OUIcehZE7ybx5TBX1pJLj3sPIN5ySUJSaYZRRR_2kjTqOe0zTseYDbFZ6H moknBSwPnHCJxAWyzIsSJkjk2pIZ_qOdxyaRA7Rpkk2fTQfUpa.MhfRMKaDx 7rrgcP_ekFW_4IHSydv7h80utRiO.RIsOpaue5EjZWcHfVL90ZDlxdJRUd36 ljQrsP.I2AYpCqm77vzhEy9oPHfVfzglaXL6y6WjhdDz28pTOSmeI9Z..F7n qXYeivYg3e5H.PIxbMQu.mvFM165Rj5urFdeYlJz5MDmxhcV5Kfs5cXNck5d 26GXhiNV7CZ1EHVJhinVAE7DUPwkH7sOb6yyvmmeDEZMTsT9P30yvHwlleVv Ol0inn3PCK28xuIXb63Q9i5zcxKu17g5n6p5dK97GrIs.Uq_3.foTLc6teUd PkwqaI1kbsl12
Received: from [70.36.254.42] by web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:54 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, MQoKCgoKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KRnJvbTogS2FyZW4gTydEb25vZ2h1ZSA8b2Rvbm9naHVlQGlzb2Mub3JnPgpUbzogam9zZUBpZXRmLm9yZwpTZW50OiBUaHUsIEFwcmlsIDExLCAyMDEzIDQ6NTg6NTYgUE0KU3ViamVjdDogW2pvc2VdIEZlZWRiYWNrIHJlcXVlc3Qgb24gam9zZSB0cmFja2VyIGlzc3VlIzExOiBTaG91bGQgd2UgdXNlIFJGQyAKNTExNiBhbmQgcmVtb3ZlIHRoZSBKV0UgSW50ZWdyaXR5IFZhbHVlIGZpZWxkPwoKSXNzdWUgIzExIGh0dHA6Ly90cmFjLnRvb2wBMAEBAQE-
X-RocketYMMF: edmundjay@sbcglobal.net
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/728 YahooMailWebService/0.8.140.532
References: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <1366049094.57379.YahooMailRC@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:54 -0700
From: Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org, jose@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <51674E3D.7030004@isoc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-334495122-499660441-1366049094=:57379"
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 18:04:57 -0000

1




________________________________
From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
To: jose@ietf.org
Sent: Thu, April 11, 2013 4:58:56 PM
Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we use RFC 
5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field?

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email