The -34 drafts incorporate this change. Thanks again for your review, Brian.
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:34 AM
To: Brian Haberman; The IESG
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [jose] Brian Haberman's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with COMMENT)
Thanks for your review, Brian. I’ve added the working group to the thread so
they’re aware of your comments. Replies are inline below…
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:56 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Brian Haberman's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with COMMENT)
Brian Haberman 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Alissa's Comment about the definitions.
Per my reply to Alissa, I propose to incorporate the applicable RFC 4949
definitions by reference.
Thanks again,
-- Mike
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
