Subject: [jose] JPSK: JWKs with private RSA/EC params only?

From: "Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:40:01 -0700

Hi guys,

Justin and I began an implementation of
draft-jones-jose-json-private-and-symmetric-key-00 for the Nimbus
library. We're now able to represent the regular public RSA/EC JWKs as
well as JWKs that contain both public+private RSA/EC params. Does the
draft also envision JWK objects which include only private key
parameters? I.e. a JWK object for the public params and then another for
the private params? My reading of the spec couldn't answer this
question. Please advise.

Thanks,

Vladimir
--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : [email-masked]

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:31:27 +0000

I don't think so, but that's a question we should answer clearly one way or the other.  What's done in this regard in other specs, such as the XML key representation for XML DSIG and RFC 3447?

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [jose] JPSK: JWKs with private RSA/EC params only?

Hi guys,

Justin and I began an implementation of
draft-jones-jose-json-private-and-symmetric-key-00 for the Nimbus library. We're now able to represent the regular public RSA/EC JWKs as well as JWKs that contain both public+private RSA/EC params. Does the draft also envision JWK objects which include only private key parameters? I.e. a JWK object for the public params and then another for the private params? My reading of the spec couldn't answer this question. Please advise.

Thanks,

Vladimir
--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : [email-masked] _______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

---

From: Justin Richer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:46:23 -0400

For what it's worth, my reading of the spec was that a JWK would be a 
keypair or a public key, but never just the private key on its own. 
(Symmetric keys are their own thing, of course.)

  -- Justin

On 03/18/2013 05:40 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:41:31 -0400

It's not clear to me that there's a clear answer here, or that there needs
to be.  On the one hand, there's not really a reason *omit* public key
information, since it's public.  (Unless you're being very bit-thrifty.)
 On the other hand, public key fields aren't technically necessary for a
private key, so I hesitate to mandate their inclusion.  So overall, I lean
toward making them optional.

--Richard

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Justin Richer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> draft-jones-jose-json-private-**and-symmetric-key-00 for the Nimbus
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> jose mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>