#170: Section 4.1.2 "enc" (Encryption Method) Header Parameter Changes (by [email protected]):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Old description: > A. s/algorithm used/algorithm that was used/ > > * WON'T FIX - personal peeve > > B. Is there a conceptual difference in how errors are reported when > rejecting because an algorithm is not supported vs it is badly formed. > There is no discussion anywhere on errors to be returned to the > application. Does there need to be one? > > * WON'T FIX - we have never had any discussion on error handling. We > won't start now. > > C. See comments on section 4.1.1 about the registry > > D. s/understood/processed/ > > * FIXED - New description: A. s/algorithm used/algorithm that was used/ * WON'T FIX - personal peeve B. Is there a conceptual difference in how errors are reported when rejecting because an algorithm is not supported vs it is badly formed. There is no discussion anywhere on errors to be returned to the application. Does there need to be one? * WON'T FIX - we have never had any discussion on error handling. We won't start now. C. See comments on section 4.1.1 about the registry * WON'T FIX D. s/understood/processed/ * FIXED - -- -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: Editorial | Milestone: Component: json-web- | Version: encryption | Resolution: fixed Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/170#comment:2> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/> _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
