That limitation seems very sensible to me. It would be a large simplification over current JWE, with its abundance of key identifiers. --Richard
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Matt Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
