These review comments are addressed in the -34 draft, including using
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Thanks again for your review.
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:57 PM
To: Alissa Cooper; The IESG
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [jose] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: (with COMMENT)
Thanks for your review, Alissa. I’ve added the working group to this thread so
they're aware of your comments. Replies are inline below…
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:24 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33:
(with COMMENT)
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-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-signature/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
== Section 2 ==
"These terms defined by the JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE]
specification are incorporated into this specification: "JSON Web
Encryption (JWE)" and "JWE Compact Serialization"."
Seems like "JWE JSON Serialization" should be included in this list as well.
Good catch – thanks.
== Section 4.2 ==
"As indicated by the common registry, JWSs and JWEs share a common
Header Parameter space; when a parameter is used by both
specifications, its usage must be compatible between the
specifications."
Since both the JWS and JWE specifications are on their way to becoming RFCs,
would it make more sense to say "its usage is compatible between the
specifications"? Or is this for the future when new parameters may get defined?
(Per my response to your related comment on the JWE spec, this language applies
to both initial and subsequent IANA registrations.)
== Section 9 ==
Do we use [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>? I usually use
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
-- Mike
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
