I prefer the approach Mike is proposing. It is overall simper and less restructuring.
John B. On 2013-06-25, at 7:18 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-aes-gcm-key-wrap-00 seems like a > substantially simpler approach > thanhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-key-wrapping-01. This is > evident by several metrics: > · Number of proposed changes: The Jones draft proposes no changes to > any of the current specs. It simply defines an encoding for GCM and adds > registry entries for it. Whereas the Barnes draft proposes a major > restructuring – listing 4 major changes in the introduction and 4 smaller > changes. > · Normative text size: The Jones GCM key wrap approach requires only > 7 normative sentences in 1/2 page of text. The Barnes draft has four pages > of normative text, along with an extensive introduction describing the > proposed complete restructuring of JWS and JWE. > > We don’t need to boil the ocean with a total redesign to enable AEAD key > wrapping. It can already easily be done with the current specs simply by > defining new algorithms. The approach taken in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-aes-gcm-key-wrap-00 would work > for any AEAD algorithm. > > -- Mike > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim > Schaad > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [jose] Issue #13 - use AES-GCM for Key Wrapping > > We now have two documents – one from Richard and one from Mike – which > provide the two different ways that have been proposed for doing key wrapping > with an AEAD algorithm. > > Please review the two documents and provide comments to the list. > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
