These proposed resolutions of been applied to the -34 draft.
Thanks again,
-- Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:54 AM
> To: Stephen Farrell; The IESG
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> signature-33: (with COMMENT)
>
> Thanks for your review, Stephen. I'm adding the working group to the thread
> so
> they're aware of your comments.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 4:36 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-signature-
> > 33: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Stephen Farrell 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:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > no-obj
> >
> > I think Pete is wrong about section 8 and would DISCUSS its
> > removal;-) Its needed for jku handling.
>
> Thanks for weighing in. FYI, it's also needed for x5u handling. I'll make
> sure that
> the wording appropriately scopes the requirements.
>
> > 4.1.2: TLS server auth is good here, but only makes sense if the jku
> > parameter itself was signed and there wasn't any odd HTTP 3xx
> > re-direction and/or if the authority in the jku value is reflected in the
> > subject or
> SAN of the TLS server cert.
> > Why is it ok to not include such detail? Is all of that correct and
> > appropriate in
> > 6125 (which I see you reference from section 9)
>
> Yes, I believe that this is handled by 6125, which is a virtual treatise on
> how to
> do this right.
>
> > 4.1.4: why isn't this case-sensitive still as in JWKs? (Is that a
> > result of lots of copied text over >1 draft?)
>
> Good catch - thanks
>
> > 4.1.5-4.1.8: If all of that text is replicated elsewhere it should
> > only be included in one and cross-referenced.
>
> It is cross-referenced in JWE Sections 4.1.7-4.1.10, rather than being
> duplicated.
> (It used to be duplicated, but we fixed that a while back.)
>
> 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
