Thanks for your review, Alissa. I’ve added the working group to this thread so they're aware of your comments. Replies are inline below…
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 2:30 PM To: The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: (with COMMENT) Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- == Section 3.4 == "Signing and validation with the ECDSA P-384 SHA-384 and ECDSA P-521 SHA-512 algorithms is performed identically to the procedure for ECDSA P-256 SHA-256 -- just using the corresponding hash algorithms with correspondingly larger result values. For ECDSA P-384 SHA-384, R and S will be 384 bits each, resulting in a 96 octet sequence. For ECDSA P-521 SHA-512, R and S will be 521 bits each, resulting in a 132 octet sequence." For the ECDSA P-521 SHA-512 case, how does the result amount to 132 octets? Is there padding inserted into R and S? The P-521 curve uses 521-bit R and S values. It takes 66 octets to represent 521 bits. There are two 66-octet values, hence 132 octets. == Section 7 == Do we use [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>? I usually use [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. == Section 8.4 == "An Initialization Vector value MUST never be used multiple times with the same AES GCM key." I think what was intended here was s/MUST never/MUST NOT/ Agreed. To keep the same level of emphasis, I propose to change “MUST never” to “MUST NOT ever”. -- Mike
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
