I have a slight preference for (2), assuming JWE retains the "kid" parameter.
I personally would rather limit key indication to a JWK (and wrapping "x5c" in
a JWK), or a reference to a JWK ("kid", and maybe "jku").- m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc. On Apr 11, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]> wrote: > Issue #12 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/12 > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/12> suggests removing the > "x5c" header parameter from JWE, saying that no use case for it has emerged. > The same logic may apply to other key specification parameters for JWE. > > > Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue? > > 1. Retain the "x5c" header parameter in JWE. > > 2. Remove the "x5c" header parameter (and possibly other related key > specification parameters) from JWE. > > 3. Another resolution (please specify in detail). > > 0. I need more information to decide. > > Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19^th or earlier. > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
