- From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:49:52 -0800
- To: "'Mark Watson'" <watsonm@netflix.com>, <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
I agree that this is definitely NOT normative text. The only obvious place I can think of is in the generic wrapKey description for placement. I am neutral on the proposed text and it's inclusion in the document. It is not clear to me that it will help, but on the other hand I don't believe it is harmful in anyway. Jim From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:41 AM To: public-webcrypto@w3.org Subject: Bug 24457 - AES-KW can only wrap a JWK key if its serialization happens to be 8*n bytes long https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24457 Alexey re-opened this bug with: "A WebCrypto implementation can pad JWK with spaces for AES-KW, but the same padding can destroy the ability to wrap with RSA-OAEP, because you can run out of size limit. So, any padding should be conditional on which algorithm will be used for encryption in a later step of wrapping algorithm. I think that it would be appropriate to have normative text. But even if it's simply a note, it should be: 1. Substantially more elaborate than suggested above. 2. Added as part of this bug (so it seems like the bug should remain open until the note is added)." I would suggest that any such note be non-normative: - There has been strong objection to specifying our own padding scheme - There is no _need_ for normative specification to ensure interoperability: so long as the serialization is valid JSON, we are good. A note (I am not sure where it would be) might look something like: "Note: Some algorithms used for key wrapping place constraints on the payload size. For example AES-KW requires the payload to be a multiple of 8 bytes in length and RSA-OAEP places a restriction on the length. For key formats that offer flexibility in serialization of a given key (for exmaple JWK), implementations may choose to adapt the serialization to the constraints of the wrapping algorithm." Comments ? ...Mark
Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 17:51:58 UTC