This would require that this document update RFC 7518 to make one or the other be present.
You probably want to have a general update of some type that says you either have the 'p11' element or the private fields but not both for all key types. Jim -----Original Message----- From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Dzhuvinov Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: Nathaniel McCallum <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]>; Daiki Ueno <[email protected]>; Sorce, Simo <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [jose] PKCS #11 for JWK Great! The "k" parameter appears to be mandatory for "oct" JWKs. How can we reconcile that with the p11 spec? Ideas? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#section-6.4.1 On 05/07/17 21:01, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > I have updated the draft from the comments everyone has provided. > However, document uploads are currently locked due to the IETF > meeting, so I have attached the document here. Your feedback is > greatly appreciated. > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Nathaniel McCallum > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have prepared an initial stab at a draft for offloading JWK private >> key data to PKCS #11. >> >> You can find the document here: >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mccallum-jose-pkcs11-jwk-00.txt >> _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
