+1 No need to hold up the base specs.
Note that if we repurpose/generalize "EC", then old parsers will reject JWKs without "y" elements. But that's OK, because they wouldn't understand the new curve anyway. On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Justin Richer <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, this makes the most sense given that JWK is a highly extensible format > > > On 08/14/2014 05:27 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > > +1 > ------------------------------ > From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]> > Sent: 8/14/2014 2:26 PM > To: Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > Cc: Richard Barnes <[email protected]>; Mike Scott <[email protected]>; Trevor > Perrin <[email protected]>; Daniel Holth <[email protected]>; Mike Jones > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] JWK Elliptic Curve key representations and new curves > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stephen Farrell > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 14/08/14 14:43, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> It would be very much preferable, however, to keep this on ice until the > >> CFRG debate settles. > > > > Yep. That'd be sensible. Time enough when CFRG have > > produced a result. > > Ok, JWA should move forward into last call once the shepherd report is > posted and this can be added into the registry and may require a separate > draft. Does that sound good? > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > > > > S. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jose mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
