Thanks Illari, the proposed change looks good to me. I updated https://github.com/ietf-wg-jose/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/pull/76, please check.
Cheers, -Tiru On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 00:39, Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 04:37:51PM +0530, tirumal reddy wrote: > > Thanks, Orie, for the detailed explanation. I’ve updated PR #76 > > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-jose/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/pull/76> > to > > address these points. The recipient_protected_header has been removed, > and > > the next_layer_alg field has been made mandatory, along with added > > rationale for its inclusion. > > I think binary encoding would be better here, as it would be much > simpler and much more compact (space is at premium here, as the maximum > portable info size is 64 bytes). E.g.: > > "JOSE-HPKE > rcpt"+BYTE(255)+ASCII(next_layer_alg)+BYTE(255)+recipient_extra_info > > > (Substitute ASCII->UTF8 to encode illegal algorithm names, or > ASCII->WTF8 to encode even more illegal ones.) > > > E.g., A256GCM without extra info gives: > > "JOSE-HPKE rcpt\xffA256GCM\xff" (23 bytes) > > > > > -Ilari > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
