Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

I wasn't saying that it should be a separate parameter.  It's just not
necessary in a lot of cases.   If you have a 16-octet value in
"encrypted_key", then you don't need to specify the key length; you could
just say "AES-GCM", and the implementation would know it was AES-128-GCM
based on the length of the key.  Worse, as it is, there can be conflict.
 What should an implementation do with "enc":"A128GCM" with a 32-octet
"encrypted_key"?  Use the first 16 octets?  The last?  Reject?

OTOH, for the cases where a KEK is derived, you do need to specify a key
length for the KEK.  So you could either do (1) "ECDH-ES+AES-KW" with a
"dkLen" parameter (as in PKCS#5), or (2) "ECDH-ES+A128KW".  If I were
designing from clean slate, I would prefer #1, but I can live with #2.

PROPOSAL: Remove key lengths in cases where it's not required ("A*GCM",
"A*KW", "A*GCMKW"), since the length of the key will be clear from the
"encrypted_key" value (or for "dir", from provisioning).  Leave them in the
"alg" values, since you need to specify key length there.

PROS:
-- Mitigate combinatorial explosion (don't need one identifier per key type)
-- Avoid conflict issues
-- Save 3 octets if you don't care about being pretty ("AGCM" instead of
"A128GCM", though I would prefer "AES-GCM")
-- Parallelism with the JWS algorithms (e.g., "HS256"), which don't specify
key length

CONS:
-- Requires existing implementations to support additional algorithm
identifiers (note: doesn't preclude supporting the old algorithm
identifiers!)

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> +1   I don't think taking the length out of the algorithm and making it a
> separate parameter is a good way to go.
>
> On 2013-07-19, at 1:11 PM, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
>
> 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****
>
>
>