The -30 drafts incorporate all of these suggested changes.
Thanks again,
-- Mike
P.S. I just checked and for some reason the production of the versions at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/ seems to be delayed. If the draft name you see
doesn’t end in -30, try the plain text versions such as
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-30.txt or the diffs
such as http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-30
for now (which do exist).
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 6:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [jose] Review of JWE draft
Hello,
I reviewed the JWE draft and have some comments below. The draft looks good
overall and my comments are mostly grammar related.
Section 3, It seems like it would be helpful to have the definitions for the
two defined serializations for JWE objects broken out into subsections or at
least distinguished in some way (bullets, etc).
Section 3.1, references may be helpful for included for algorithms:
RSAES OAEP [] for key encryption
AES GCM [] for content encryption
Section 5.2, for bullet number 1, Could you break the first sentence into two
and structure the second of those two sentences in a manner similar to the
current sentence 2?
Section 5.2, bullet #4, please break into two sentences
Section 11, Not sure on this, but would the use of the word 'faced' be
difficult for non-native English speakers to understand? May use 'that apply
to' or something similar?
Section 11, In the last sentence of the first paragraph, it sounds as if no
additional considerations will be included, but there are subsections that
follow. Could you mention that the following subsection include some important
considerations, however…
I think that will help the section flow better.
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
