#114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter

Description changed by [email protected]:

Old description:

> A. What is meant by an extension to this specification - is that only a
> v2 or it is just anyone who defines a new header parameter?
>
> B. Sentence #2 needs a grammar re-write
>
> C. Does it make a difference if they are unprotected header fields?
> Should they be required to be protected?
>
> * WON'T FIX
>
> D. If you are looking at the JWA document, then you need to say that this
> is just the first version and not a revision to it.
>
> E. re-write MUST NOT to be MUST if possible - 2119 language issue
>
> * DUP of #70
>
> F. Remove redundant statement on where it occurs.

New description:

 A. What is meant by an extension to this specification - is that only a v2
 or it is just anyone who defines a new header parameter?

 B. Sentence #2 needs a grammar re-write

 C. Does it make a difference if they are unprotected header fields?
 Should they be required to be protected?

 * WON'T FIX

 D. If you are looking at the JWA document, then you need to say that this
 is just the first version and not a revision to it.

 E. re-write MUST NOT to be MUST if possible - 2119 language issue

 * DUP of #70

 F. Remove redundant statement on where it occurs.

 * WON'T FIX

--

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [email protected] |  [email protected]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  signature              |  Resolution:
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/114#comment:2>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to