Why have separate media types for JWS and JWE?
Wouldn’t it be better to have one media type for the dot-separated-base64url 
serialization of a JOSE message — regardless of whether the content was 
unprotected, signed, MACed, encrypted with any of the supported options, or any 
future algorithm?

  application/jose

A second media type for the separate serialization is useful.

  application/jose+json

--
James Manger


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> jose issue tracker
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013 7:06 AM
> To: [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [jose] #22: JSON Serialization media types not consistent with
> RFC 6839
> 
> #22: JSON Serialization media types not consistent with RFC 6839
> 
>  The JSON Serialization media types "application/jwe-js" and
> "application  /jws-js" are not consistent with RFC 6839.
> 
>  * "application/jwe-js" should be "application/jwe+json"
>  * "application/jws-js" should be "application/jws+json"
> 
> --
> -------------------------+---------------------------------------------
> -
> -------------------------+---
>  Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
>   [email protected]     |  [email protected]
>      Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
>  Priority:  minor        |  Milestone:
> Component:  json-web-    |    Version:
>   encryption             |   Keywords:
>  Severity:  Active WG    |
>   Document               |
> -------------------------+---------------------------------------------
> -
> -------------------------+---
> 
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/22>
> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/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

Reply via email to