It's not that they affect the JOSE processing rules - it's that they make it
easier for JOSE applications to have more consistent processing rules.
This brings us back full circle. I believe that Jim's original reasoning from
the 2011-2012 discussion of this still applies:
[JLS] If it is believe that a parameter this list is going to be "commonly"
used by many different profilers, then I believe that the core items needs to
be done the in the base specification. I would therefore not be in favor of
punting it out to somebody else. The only exception would be if we are going
to have a very light core and a "real" core specs. In this case the very light
core spec could punt to the "real" core spec. Having said that I think that a
registry would be a good idea.
Cheers,
-- Mike
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard
Barnes
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:37 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: Mike Jones; Richer, Justin P.; [email protected]; Jim Schaad
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
If they don't affect JOSE, then they shouldn't be in the base spec.
--Richard
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
I agree that they are fine as-is. We can and should be clearer that these
fields don't effect the JOSE processing but are application fields.
From:
[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[email protected]');>
[mailto:[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[email protected]');>]
On Behalf Of Richer, Justin P.
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:31 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Jim Schaad;
[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[email protected]');>
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
I think that the two fields are fine as they're currently defined, as Mike
describes below. They're hanging points for information that other applications
of the JOSE stack can use to switch functionality out, and as such they should
be well-defined and optional to allow general libraries and applications to do
their jobs.
-- Justin
On May 29, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Mike Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
"typ" declares what the type of THIS OBJECT is.
"cty" declares what the type of THE PAYLOAD or THE PLAINTEXT is.
They're different.
In the JWT case, a JWT Claims Set (the normal JWT Payload), which is a JSON
Object containing Claims, is a completely different data structure from a JWT,
which is a dot-separated list of base64url encoded fields. The "cty"
represents the former; the "typ" represents the latter.
-- Mike
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[email protected]<http://augustcellars.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:43 PM
To: Mike Jones; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Can you justify why the JWT spec shou
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
