On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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”? > Yes. Thanks, --Richard > **** > > ** ** > > 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] | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-**** > > Type: defect | [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
