I also like this approach.
-- Justin
On 04/16/2013 12:48 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
On Apr 11, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
