Re: Bug 24457 - AES-KW can only wrap a JWK key if its serialization happens to be 8*n bytes long

My proposal for this is to add an *informative* note to the wrapKey method
description as follows:

"Informative note: The key wrapping operations for some algorithms 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 example JWK), implementations may choose to adapt the
serialization to the constraints of the wrapping algorithm."

...Mark


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Yeah, no need for normative text.  It would be helpful to have a note that
> says "Reminder: needs to be a multiple of 8 bytes long; pad as you like if
> you need to."
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>