Hi Richard,
The text that you proposed for #55, in which “apv” is not used, contradicts the
request that “apu” and “apv” be required. Furthermore, as Brian Campbell
pointed out, PartyAInfo is optional for Ephemeral-Static mode in RFC 2631, so
“apu” should be optional as well.
“epk” is already required for key agreement.
Can you therefore agree to resolve this issue as “wontfix”?
Thanks,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: jose issue tracker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 3:55 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [jose] #54: epk/apu/apv need to be REQUIRED
#54: epk/apu/apv need to be REQUIRED
The Concat specification requires these fields to be non-empty. So they
should also be required to be present here.
--
-------------------------+----------------------------------------------
-------------------------+---
Reporter: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | Owner:
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
Type: defect |
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Priority: major | Status: new
Component: json-web- | Milestone:
algorithms | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
-------------------------+----------------------------------------------
-------------------------+---
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/54>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
