I have already responded on item 3. 1 & 2 should be deal with as part of either AD comments or IETF last comments. Id on't see these as blocking right now.
Jim From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:14 AM To: Sean Turner Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-05.txt 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
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
