1 - It causes no problems to have spi remain in a separate spec as an optional feature
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field? Issue #8 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/8 proposes adding an "spi" (security parameters index) header parameter to the JWS and JWE specifications. This modification to the JOSE formats would allow for signaling that pre-negotiated cryptographic parameters are being used, rather than including those parameters in the JWS or JWE header. This proposal has been written up as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-spi-00. Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue? 1. Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that could optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations. 2. Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications as a mandatory feature. 3. Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications as an optional feature. 4. Another resolution (please specify in detail). 0. I need more information to decide. Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th or earlier.
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
