Re: [OAUTH-WG] proof-of-possession-02 unencrypted oct JWK in encrypted JWT okay?

Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:06:07 -0700 

OK
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 12:57 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> As discussed in the thread “[OAUTH-WG] JWT PoP Key Semantics WGLC followup 2 
> (was Re: proof-of-possession-02 unencrypted oct JWK in encrypted JWT okay?)”, 
> I will update the draft to say that the symmetric key can be carried in the 
> “jwk” element in an unencrypted form if the JWT is itself encrypted.  This 
> will happen in -04.
>  
>                                                             -- Mike
>  
> From: OAuth [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:41 PM
> To: oauth
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] proof-of-possession-02 unencrypted oct JWK in encrypted 
> JWT okay?
>  
> When the JWT is itself encrypted as a JWE, would it not be reasonable to have 
> a symmetric key be represented in the cnf claim with the jwk member as an 
> unencrypted JSON Web Key? 
> 
> Is such a possibility left as an exercise to the reader? Or should it be more 
> explicitly allowed or disallowed? 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to