1 Rationale: simplicity again. As an implementer I don't want to do an extra step of binary serialize something. Also, strings are easier to debug with fiddler.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Anthony Nadalin <[email protected]>wrote: > 1 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mike Jones > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we > use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field? > > 1. Continue having separate Ciphertext, Initialization Vector, and > Integrity Value values in the JWE representation. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Roland Hedberg > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue#11: Should we > use RFC 5116 and remove the JWE Integrity Value field? > > 1 > > 12 apr 2013 kl. 01:58 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]>: > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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
