RE: JWK attributes for WebCrypto keys: last call

You could call it "uses" if you prefer - since it's multi-valued.  Use the same values as used in the WebCrypto spec.  Keep things simple.

Simplicity is why "use" doesn't specify multi-valued combinations.  It's good enough to prevent people from mixing signing and encryption, which is the problem it's trying to prevent.  It's not that finer-grained use descriptions aren't reasonable in some contexts - it just that they're not always necessary, and so JOSE went with something simpler.

If you feel that they're necessary, go for it.  Define "uses" or whatever you want to call it and get it registered.  I'm sure that people would thank you.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:21 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Mark Watson; GALINDO Virginie; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: JWK attributes for WebCrypto keys: last call



On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
JWK is a general-purpose key format.  "use" is a simple optional key use designator within that format.  The format is extensible.  There's no barrier to WebCrypto defining and registering a different finer-grained key use designator for that format as well.  Just use a different name and define the set of values.

I'm not sure why people seem hell-bent on cramming finer-grained multi-valued use values into a single-valued property.  Doing it right and creating a different property is so much easier.

                                                            -- Mike

Because we would hope that an IETF standard would accomodate multiple use cases beyond JWE/JWS, which it seems to be a design flaw - whether intentional from design philosophy or accidental from the fact that JWE/JWS were the only users of JWK at the time - that it would fail to accomodate such a use case that has long been recognized by other key formats.

You're absolutely correct that we could specify "WebCrypto_use" - but it would seem like, for symmetry and following that design logic, JWK's "use" should be "JWE_use" or "JWS_use", or something equally spec-specific.

I'm sure the visceral reaction to such a design proposal is negative, which is I think what some of us are feeling with a suggestion that "Webcrypto_use" is a somehow clean or elegant solution for the intransigent inflexibility of JWK.


From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:11 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Mark Watson; GALINDO Virginie; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>

Subject: Re: JWK attributes for WebCrypto keys: last call



On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>From my point of view, it would be a lot cleaner to use a different JWK identifier than "use", such as "WebCrypto_uses" than to overload "use" with different, but related values.  It will hurt interoperation by creating keys that use a common identifier differently, and in a non-interoperable manner.  It would be far better to use a different identifier, which can be safely ignored by vanilla JWK implementations, rather than to overload the standard identifier, and potentially cause JWK implementations to reject the keys.

Mike,

Respectfully, this makes no sense to me.

I could understand your argument if the basis was that it hurt interoperability with JWE/JWS libraries, but that's not the argument you made - you suggested it hurts interoperability with "vanilla JWK implementations". There is, I believe, an inherent assumption that "vanilla JWK implementations" == "JWE and JWE", but I don't think that's the case at all, nor do I think that's a fair sign for the JOSE efforts if that is believed to be the case.

If JWK is meant to be a key descriptor/key container format, for use in a variety of specifications (including JWE and JWS, but also WebCrypto), then supporting extensions to "use" per the relevant specifications seems absolutely the correct approach. However, if your view is that JWK is "really" only meant for JWE/JWK, and everything else should either extend JWE/JWS or define custom attributes, well, then I think this WG is making a mistake by attaching to JWK, since it's clear that is not the authors' intent.

Cheers


Since "use" is OPTIONAL, WebCrypto could also specify that it not be used in a JWK when "WebCrypto_uses" is used, so that there's no duplication of information.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi
Cc: GALINDO Virginie; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>; Mike Jones
Subject: Re: JWK attributes for WebCrypto keys: last call



Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 16, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>> wrote:

Were we not waiting to hear from JOSE?
We heard from them that it is ok / intended for others to register new use values for JWK and they have modified their specification accordingly.

Separately, I have raised the question of whether we should change the comma-separated string format for multiple use values to an Array. On this there is no consensus yet, so we should stick with the format in the proposal and now in the Editor's Draft.

...Mark

On Dec 16, 2013 7:07 AM, "GALINDO Virginie" <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com<mailto:Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
FYI, as there was no comment to this call, the text proposed by Mark has been integrated.
Virginie

From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>]
Sent: lundi 2 décembre 2013 17:32
To: public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Subject: JWK attributes for WebCrypto keys: last call

All,

On our call today we discussed the proposal for this [1] which I revised as a result of the email/bug discussion (Comment 12 to [1]). There were no further comments on the call and have been no further comments on the list.

We agreed to send a "last chance" email to the list (that is what this is). In the absence of comments we'll add this material to the editor's draft.

...Mark

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23796

________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus