As I recall, there was no discussion of compact formats at the interim, so
both alternatives are available for comment. In both cases, all top-level
header fields are integrity-protected.


On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, Mike Jones wrote:

>  For context, I believe that the participants in the interim meeting had
> agreed that for the compact serializations (which only support a single
> recipient or signature), for simplicity reasons, we will continue to
> require that all header fields be integrity protected.  This means that the
> dot-separated fields for JWS and JWE remain as they are.  Yes, we’d
> discussed possibly adding more dot-separated fields as a hypothetical
> exercise, but decided not to do so for the single-recipient compact
> serialization case.****
>
> ** **
>
> Other than recording the hypothetical discussion about possible adding
> more fields to the compact serializations, and the
> “JWE-PROPOSED-SUPER-SIMPLE” example, which was not discussed at the interim
> meeting, “I believe that Richard’s note below accurately reflects the
> discussions on this topic during the interim working group meeting.****
>
> ** **
>
> FYI, I’ll also forward a note I wrote that independently recorded these
> decisions, which had previously been sent to the interim meeting
> participants.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[email protected]');> [mailto:[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 
> 'cvml', '[email protected]');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Richard Barnes
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:08 AM
> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>
> *Subject:* [jose] Selective header protection****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear JOSE WG,****
>
> ** **
>
> [This will be better covered by the chair's minutes from the interim, but
> I wanted to go ahead and post a summary so that related key wrapping
> discussion can happen.]****
>
> ** **
>
> One of the topics discussed at the JOSE interim was how to deal with
> header integrity for multiple recipients.  There was agreement in the room
> to proceed with a strategy of removing some header parameters from
> integrity protection -- especially per-recipient parameters.****
>
> ** **
>
> At a high-level, the change to the syntax is as follows:****
>
> -- For JWE, header parameters may be included at the top level of a JWE-JS
> or within the "recipients" objects****
>
> -- Unprotected parameters are expressed as a JSON dictionary under the
> "header" parameter****
>
> -- Protected parameters are base64-encoded and included under the
> "protected" parameter****
>
> ** **
>
> Thus, for example, a JWE might have the following form:****
>
> {****
>
>     "protected": "eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIn0K",****
>
>     "recipients": [{****
>
>         "header": { "alg": "A128KW", "kid": "42" },****
>
>         "encrypted_key": "w_6lbR8WRO0-pxm3MyEXmg"****
>
>     }],****
>
>     "initialization_vector": "vKjNIAhMfYW3zq-TikHfXQ",****
>
>     "ciphertext": "PTRhlo61rZ9bcVFLGK6sIi21r9-Zez03",****
>
>     "authentication_tag": "Zurj775FrQgnI-EPZmbUCg"****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> A complete set of examples is included below.  Comments welcome!****
>
> ** **
>
> One area where comments would be especially helpful is the compact
> serialization.  In the examples below, there are two proposed compact
> serializations based on the new format.  Variant 1 maps "global" parameters
> and "recipient" parameters to separate base64url-encoded parts.  Variant 2
> combines them into a single dictionary.  On the one hand, Variant 1 maps
> more simply to the JSON format; on the other hand, Variant 2 keeps the same
> number of components as the current compact serialization.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> --Richard****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> // Examples:****
>
> // 1. Current JWE-JS format****
>
> // 2. Proposed JWE-JS format****
>
> // 3. Simple example of proposed JWE-JS format****
>
> // 4. Current JWS-JS format****
>
> // 5. Proposed JWS-JS format****
>
> // 6. Proposed JWE-compact format (variant 1)****
>
> // 7. Proposed JWE-compact format (variant 2)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> // JWE-CURRENT****
>
> // header = base64({"alg":"A128KW","enc":"A128GCM","kid":"42"})****
>
> {****
>
>     "recipients": [{****
>
>         "header":
> "eyJhbGciOiJBMTI4S1ciLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwia2lkIjoiNDIifQo",****
>
>         "encrypted_key": "w_6lbR8WRO0-pxm3MyEXmg"****
>
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to