It's fine for your application to specify that it's required for your use case.
Not applications need it, so they shouldn't be forced to pay the space penalty
of an unnecessary field.
-- Mike
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dick
Hardt
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:56 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
I use it all the time and my code would barf if it was not there.
I think it should be required rather than be a hint if it is going ot be there.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Jim Schaad
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think the values just changed
However the way you are using it would be an argument to say that it should be
a required field. Are you just using it as a hint if it exists and then
looking at the rest of the fields if it is not present?
Jim
From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Well, I have been using, but now realize the spec changed or I was confused.
I had been setting "typ" to be either "JWE" or "JWS" depending on the type of
token I was creating or parsing as it was easier than looking at "alg"
As currently defined, I don't see value in "typ".
-- Dick
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jim Schaad
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
In reading the documents, I am trying to understand the justification for
having the "typ" header parameter in the JOSE documents.
The purpose of the field is to hold the type of the object. In the past, I
believe that values which should now be placed in the cty field (such as "JWT")
were placed in this field as well. However the parameter is optional and an
implementation cannot rely on its being present. This means that for all
practical purposes all of the code to determine the value of the type field
from the values of the alg and enc fields. If the field was mandatory then
this code would disappear at a fairly small space cost and I can understand why
the parameter would be present.
Can anybody justify why this field should be present in the document - or
should it just disappear?
Jim
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
--
-- Dick
--
-- Dick
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
