Chairs/AD: Should I go ahead and rev this, or handle these along with IETF LC comments?
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > spt > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose> >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
