Mike,
Sure. Here's an analysis of the requirements about duplicate member names.
There could be two very different kinds of objections to the present text:
A. People think we have the semantics for duplicate identifiers wrong.
B. People think we should explain the current semantics for duplicate
identifiers more clearly.
I sure hope that we're dealing with B and not A. Stephen, which is
the nature of your critique of this text?
C- don't accept duplicate IDs, is what I was hoping for.
I noted why allowing a recipient to accept a dup name, and use just the
last instance, will
likely lead to such behavior being perpetuated, based on PKIX experience.
Also, in a reply to Tim, I think you argued that people have already
implemented JOSE and so
we ought not make any changes at this late stage. If that's what you
said, I disagree emphatically.
The IETF always warns implementers that specs may change until an RFC is
published, and thus
one implements a pre-RFC spec at risk.
Steve
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
