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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Key Vault] Add local-only mode to CryptographyClient #16565
[Key Vault] Add local-only mode to CryptographyClient #16565
Changes from 10 commits
13dd7a2
41ef114
fad4bc0
9ecdf21
b801f12
ae2967b
0d2519f
218a312
8a602c1
8345eb6
ec7afaf
a4dd8f8
e6ae519
a2d8c87
fb36a25
5ca931d
08f5935
8afbfe2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Everything we need for local crypto is in the JWK. Do we really need to jam that into KeyVaultKey?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All the local crypto providers and operations assume that they're working with a KeyVaultKey, so we'd have to do so unless we refactor them to accept a JsonWebKey (unless I'm mistaken)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think it's unreasonable by any means to make local providers accept JWKs, but it seems like a design question of whether we do that (and preserve the current definition of a KeyVaultKey) or make a smaller tweak to accept KeyVaultKeys intended for local-only use
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, that's what I'm getting at. Their expectation of KeyVaultKey appears to be driving additional complexity here but that expectation isn't a requirement. Actually they only need the JWK. If they took that up front, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to complicate KeyVaultKey?