I think that simplification would be nice to have in the single-recipient/single-signer case, but not critical.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > As a follow up. Is this legal?**** > > ** ** > > {**** > > Header: <alg:”direct”, enc:”AES-GCM”},**** > > IV: …, tag:…, payload:…**** > > }**** > > ** ** > > Or is the line**** > > ** ** > > Recipients:[{}],**** > > ** ** > > Required?**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:04 AM > *To:* Mike Jones > *Cc:* Jim Schaad; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [jose] Question on enc location**** > > ** ** > > In which case, it seems like it should be in the top level header, to > avoid having it repeated every time. **** > > ** ** > > In general, it seems like there are "content" parameters (e.g., enc, zip, > cty) that should go at the top level, and "key" parameters that should be > per-recipient (e.g., alg, epk, salt). It would be helpful to implementors > to be clear about what goes where. **** > > ** ** > > > > On Monday, July 22, 2013, Mike Jones wrote:**** > > No – just that the “enc” field for all recipients be the same.**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Jim Schaad > *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:33 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [jose] Question on enc location**** > > **** > > Is there supposed to be a requirement in the JWE specification that the > enc field be in the common protected (or unprotected) header and no in the > individual recipient header information?**** > > **** > > Jim**** > > **** >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
