+1 for (n,e), with scoping to avoid conflict with other uses of those letters.
On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > It seems the choice is between (mod, xpo) and (n, e). A number of people > have already expressed a preference for the latter. What do others think? > > -- Mike > > P.S. I'm sending this message from this address because it bounced when I > tried to send it from my regular e-mail address. Please continue interacting > with me at my regular e-mail [email protected]. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:46:52 +0200 > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] xpo > > Structure means “more bytes”. I guess that was the reason to go for xpo. (I > cannot find the arguments on the mailing list) > > I changed my mind: Although I don’t like xpo I think that instead of going > back we should now live with xpo. Changing any implementation to understand > xpo is not that much work. > And it is better to minimize breaking changes. > > Axel > > From: Manger, James H [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:18 AM > To: Nennker, Axel; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [jose] xpo > > “exp” wouldn’t clash if we used some JSON structure in a JWK. For instance, > separate the maths fields of the public key (n, e, …) from the administrative > parts (key-id, certificate, usage…). Instead, JWK goes for a flat bucket for > all a key’s info. Hence, we have potential problems with clashes of names > from quite separate domains. We should fix the structure, instead of > tinkering with the name. > > -- > James Manger > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 5:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] xpo > > I don’t know why the exp in jwk needs to be changed. From a developer POW > there is no need. You always know which “exp” is the right one. > I would reverse the change from exp to xpo. Developers don’t need it and many > did not update their implementation to incorporate the exp->xpo transition. > > Actually I don’t care (much) how the parameters are named. Although I would > like to stick to the 3-letter scheme I am OK with the n,e proposal. > But please stop making breaking changes (especially renaming parameters which > leads only to more work and no gain). > > Case1: harm is already done -> stick with xpo and don’t change AGAIN. > Case2: Most implementation haven’t changed yet -> revert to exp > Case3: xpo is just stupid -> n,e is better -> another change -> Oh no -> > revert to exp > > Again: I suggest to revert to exp and make the implementers happy. > > Axel > > Cc’ing Nat because I don’t want to give away his developer’s emails without > asking. > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian > Campbell > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:09 PM > To: Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] xpo > > +1 (if a parameter name change is going to happen anyway) > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS > <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > -- > Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : [email protected] > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [jose] xpo > From: Richard Barnes <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, October 17, 2012 12:15 am > To: "Manger, James H" <[email protected]> > Cc: Mike Jones <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > > > +1 > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Manger, James H wrote: > > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-06 > >> • Changed the name of the JWK RSA exponent parameter from exp to xpo so as > >> to allow the potential use of the name exp for a future extension that > >> might define an expiration parameter for keys. (The exp name is already > >> used for this purpose in the JWT specification.) > > > > "n" and "e" would be better than "mod" and "xpo". > > "n" and "e" are very widely used for the RSA modulus and public exponent. > > > > s^e = m mod n > > > > -- > > James Manger > > _______________________________________________ > > jose mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > > _______________________________________________ jose mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
