Thanks for your review, Stephen. I've added the working group to the thread so they're aware of your comment.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:56 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; draft-ietf-jose-json-web- > [email protected] > Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption- > 33: (with COMMENT) > > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 1.1/3.1/7.1: I think you should define BASE64URL(null) as null so that one > knows > that one can see ".." in compact representations, e.g if there this is no AAD > or > IV. Adding an example of such would be good too. Or, if ".." is not allowed, > then > you need to say that clearly. (This could be clarified loads of ways, I > don't care > which you pick.) Good idea. I'll try to figure out an appropriate place to editorially do this - maybe right at the definition. This is definitely used in practice. Thanks again, -- Mike _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
