From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:41 AM To: Barry Leiba Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG; [email protected] Subject: Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT) These comments have been addressed in the -34 drafts. Thanks again, -- Mike From: Mike Jones Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:51 AM To: 'Barry Leiba' Cc: The IESG; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:44 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: The IESG; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT) > The intent is b. I propose that the words "This member MUST be > present, even if the array elements contain only the empty JSON object > "{}"" be changed to "This member MUST be present with exactly one > array element per recipient, even if some or all of the array element > values are the empty JSON object {}". Would that be clearer? I think that would have helped me. Again, another small point. OK [JLS] I think that this language may not be correct. Did you mean to imply that the following is a legal value for the "recipients" property. "[{},{}]" It appears that there can be any number of empty array elements can be present. If this is not the case I will try and look at proposing some text. Barry Thanks again, -- Mike
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
