> -----Original Message----- > From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:54 AM > To: Richard Barnes; The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-jose-json-web- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web- > signature-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Thanks for your review, Richard. I'm repeating my previous responses from my > Thursday reply, but this time using ">" quoting rather than colors, for better > readability by people not using HTML-enabled mail readers... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:22 PM > > To: The IESG > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > draft-ietf-jose-json-web- [email protected] > > Subject: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature- > 33: > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: Discuss > > > > 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-signature/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Appendix A.5. > > I would prefer if this example could be removed. JWT is the only use > > case for Unsecured JWS right now, and there's already an example in that > document. > > Mike> Given that it's important that implementers using them understand > Unsecured JWSs, there is motivation to retain the example. I'd be interested in > what others in the working group think, given that there was substantial > support for retaining this functionality when its removal was proposed. >
I have no problems with there being a reference to the JWT document for the example. > > > _______________________________________________ > > jose mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > Thanks again! > -- Mike > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
