A slight wording change from “recipients” to “parsers” to clarify the intent
has been made in the -34 drafts as a result of Pete Resnick’s comments on the
JWK draft. Otherwise, this language as been left as-is.
-- Mike
From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:54 AM
To: Kathleen Moriarty; Stephen Farrell
Cc: The IESG; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
[Adding the working group to this thread so they’re aware of the discussion
between our Security Area Directors on this]
From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 5:30 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: The IESG; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
sorry forgot about that...
On 02/10/14 13:04, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Yes, I mentioned the duplicate member name discussion in a couple of
> the draft's ballot text. There isn't really a great answer at this
> time unfortunately. This particular item came up in my AD review as
> well as in a SecDir review. It took some digging, but the problem is
> at least better understood now. There may be a way to fix it with a
> draft that updates if I-JSON turns out to be a good way to handle
> this. The problem is deployed code. I flagged it in case anyone in
> the IESG had an opinion. I'd love to see the right thing get done,
> but it may have to wait for a draft that updates these. Opinions are
> welcome.
At a comment level, I'd say leave things as they are. Adding the
I-JSON requirement would be premature I think as its not clear if
libraries etc will or won't adopt that. If they don't then it'd
be a meaningless requirement. If however, I-JSON does take off then
JOSE code will be fine anyway without changing.
Thanks, Stephen. I'm leaning the same way for now. It looks like Pete hit
this in a discuss, but just requesting a wording change as opposed the the more
extensive changes discussed on list. I'll follow up to his message.
S.
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
