Re: [jose] Question on enc location

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 23 July 2013 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 A783E11E80EC for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 yiGb4hEoHeEd for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com (mail-ob0-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F76011E80E4 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id up14so10041415obb.14 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=F+BOeX34Byo6SjwbDUeh2NkLeiG4ZhXSXSWyCxk9IVQ=; b=GJRzaugjDS6SIddtYpM3acKKtVphl7ejwbGt7qX/HfoIFtj6ZEtVBpC96rVX1lBZal znIgz/gWX9RoB6pN99rqkcWx9EhAUEZXsyGN40N3NU6NYLqnsNNOVTc9T9EQ4qd9p34/ pH3/xospwpHjj5YqEfXo7DNQng+2QCZw6lOm7Uvw0Z+c1yPAArn9FgoFycRXRBTxDOHK toqFF01799KznSyPJw3VJx5sdjURosWFc+ZTVQQlezhpdTG4ce6X1TdYd0kYZN9bvdwy XdiGsWX2DcxltSgWCfllnkYXa3TLx72m3n3A9J1aqVcYa+r/2u7UKqdG5y4X0e4WNLB4 x9YA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.115.199 with SMTP id jq7mr30089053oeb.19.1374581013924; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.26.135 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [108.48.145.202]
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6FFED3@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <05a101ce8733$d96415e0$8c2c41a0$@augustcellars.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6FFED3@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:03:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRFsoVOu4=opCark=iY6EXZ4kscR5Q3v2KpcZu4_ubQQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115e8e80cde1004e22c9510
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmqTA5xhAtPzWsjGaKh+yjdbvk/Uly+EObHGT93oriolw9gd0YYqyaU16jpCLJxtnNEUnhV
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Question on enc location
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, 23 Jul 2013 12:03:43 -0000

In which case, it seems like it should be in the top level header, to avoid
having it repeated every time.

In general, it seems like there are "content" parameters (e.g., enc, zip,
cty) that should go at the top level, and "key" parameters that should be
per-recipient (e.g., alg, epk, salt).  It would be helpful to implementors
to be clear about what goes where.



On Monday, July 22, 2013, Mike Jones wrote:

>  No – just that the “enc” field for all recipients be the same.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'jose-bounces@ietf.org');> [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jose-bounces@ietf.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Jim Schaad
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:33 PM
> *To:* jose@ietf.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jose@ietf.org');>
> *Subject:* [jose] Question on enc location****
>
> ** **
>
> Is there supposed to be a requirement in the JWE specification that the
> enc field be in the common protected (or unprotected) header and no in the
> individual recipient header information?****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim****
>
> ** **
>