On 9/12/13 9:04 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Sean Turner
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-05.txt
I'm just nitting for now:
1) s2
OLD:
The JOSE working group charter calls for the group to define three basic
JSON
object formats:
NEW:
Three basic JSON object formats are initially defined, with more possibly
defined later:
2) s2
OLD:
The JOSE working group items intended to describe these formats are JSON
Web Signature (JWS), JSON Web Encryption (JWE), and JSON Web Key
(JWK), respectively [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-signature]
[I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-encryption] [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-key].
NEW:
The JSON Web Signature (JWS), JSON Web Encryption (JWE), and JSON Web
Key (JWK) specifications, respectively [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-signature]
[I-
D.ietf-jose-json-web-encryption]
[I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-key], define these formats.
3) s3: Not sure the following is entirely correct for DH-based algs:
o The JOSE encrypted object format must support object encryption in
the case where the sender has only a public key for the receiver.
Shouldn't this also include the case where the sender has their own public
key and the receiver's public key.
Not really - we are doing ephemeral DH so the key sender key is created on
the fly.
Ah I should have re-read the alg draft too.
spt
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
