1 ish.

Representing the nonce/IV separately should not preclude using a crypto library 
generated nonce/IV , as may be done in some libraries implementing  
draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2.

So I am in favour of the current serialization while wanting to support the 
crypto from  draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 if not the particular 
serialization which is optimized for a different use-case.   The current 
draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 conflates crypto and serialization.  I am 
hoping we can resolve that so the crypto can be supported.

John B.

On 2013-04-11, at 8:58 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to