1
On 04/16/2013 10:24 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
I'm confused. This is not about the IV == Initialization Vector, it's
about the JWE Integrity Value (inconveniently also "IV"). I don't
think anyone has proposed merging in the initialization vector, both
because that's not what RFC 5116 does and because it's a terrible idea :)
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Issue #11 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/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 19^th or earlier.
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
