First pass at HAIP HPKE section - #362
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Sakurann
requested review from
GarethCOliver,
awoie,
bc-pi,
c2bo,
hlozi,
jogu,
selfissued,
tlodderstedt and
tplooker
and removed request for
jogu
March 9, 2026 16:07
Sakurann
commented
Mar 12, 2026
|
|
||
| ### Response Encryption using HPKE with JWE | ||
|
|
||
| Response encryption MUST be performed as specified in [@!OIDF.OID4VP, section 8.3.1]. The JWE `alg` (algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.1]) value `HPKE-0` (as defined in [@I-D.ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt]). The JWE `enc` (encryption algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.2]) value `A128GCM` (as defined in [@!RFC7518, section 5.3]) MUST be supported by Verifiers and Wallets. |
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
need to omit enc.
Co-authored-by: Kristina <52878547+Sakurann@users.noreply.github.com>
GarethCOliver
approved these changes
Mar 26, 2026
GarethCOliver
left a comment
GarethCOliver
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm with the suggested change.
javereec
reviewed
Apr 24, 2026
Sakurann
marked this pull request as ready for review
April 27, 2026 20:23
Co-authored-by: Kristina <52878547+Sakurann@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jan Vereecken <ciao@janvereecken.com>
fkj
reviewed
Jul 24, 2026
|
|
||
| ### Response Encryption using HPKE with JWE | ||
|
|
||
| Response encryption MUST be performed as specified in [@!OIDF.OID4VP, section 8.3.1] using JOSE HPKE integrated encryption. The JWE `alg` (algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.1]) value `HPKE-0` (as defined in [@I-D.ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt]) MUST be supported by Wallets and Verifiers. `psk_id` (pre-shared key id) header parameter MUST NOT be present. The JWE `enc` (encryption algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.2]) MUST NOT be present. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
psk_id(pre-shared key id) header parameter MUST NOT be present
The JWE
enc(encryption algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.2]) MUST NOT be present.
It would probably be helpful to clarify where/when they must not be present.
Member
|
I think this needs to be rebased before merging, and also we should probably check that section number references are still accurate. |
Collaborator
|
discussed in WG: @c2bo will review |
Collaborator
Co-authored-by: Frederik Krogsdal Jacobsen <fkj@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kristina <52878547+Sakurann@users.noreply.github.com>
c2bo
reviewed
Sep 16, 2026
|
|
||
| ### Response Encryption using ECDH-ES with JWE | ||
|
|
||
| Response encryption MUST be performed as specified in [@!OIDF.OID4VP, section 8.3]. The JWE `alg` (algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.1]) value `ECDH-ES` (as defined in [@!RFC7518, section 4.6]), with key agreement utilizing keys on the `P-256` curve (see [@!RFC7518, section 6.2.1.1]) MUST be supported. The JWE `enc` (encryption algorithm) header parameter (see [@!RFC7516, section 4.1.2]) values `A128GCM` and `A256GCM` (as defined in [@!RFC7518, section 5.3]) MUST be supported by Verifiers. Wallets MUST support `A128GCM` or `A256GCM` or both. If the Wallet supports both, it SHOULD use `A256GCM` for the JWE `enc`. Verifiers MUST list both `A128GCM` and `A256GCM` in `encrypted_response_enc_values_supported` in their client metadata. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are pointing to OpenID4VP 1.0, so these links will currently be broken. I guess that is fine and we don't have to change the link 1.1 editor's draft, but will create broken references for the time being.
Collaborator
|
Discussed today. @c2bo will raise an issue to track the reference to VP 1.1 |
Co-authored-by: Christian Bormann <chris.bormann@gmx.de>
c2bo
approved these changes
Sep 21, 2026
Collaborator
|
@bhjelm this has been updated and is now ready for your review |
fkj
approved these changes
Sep 24, 2026
Collaborator
|
Discussed today. @bhjelm will review. Looks ready to merge after. |
bhjelm
approved these changes
Sep 24, 2026
Collaborator
PR approved. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
resolves #356
resolves #357
builds up on #361 (#361 needs to be merged first)