I suppose my answer to this poll (either Karen's or Mike's wording) is "Yes".
However, while I do think that key information exchanges outside of the JWE/JWS headers are important, I do think a reference to the resultant key is mandatory. - m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc. On Apr 11, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]> wrote: > Issue #15 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/15 > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/15>. suggests requiring that > a key indicator, such as a "kid" field, be required in all JWS and JWE > headers.Are use cases where key information is exchanged by means other than > the JWS or JWE headers important? > > Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue? > > 1. Yes. > > 2. No. > > 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
