Text saying this was added to the -02 draft, per your and Hideki’s input.
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 11:39 AM
To: Jim Schaad; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] Working Group last call on draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint
I agree with you that we should probably add text saying that the thumbprint
value could be used as a Key ID (Hideki Nara made this point yesterday as
well), and that it is an application decision whether to carry the value in a
“jkt”, “kid”, or another field. (In one case, OpenID Connect uses it as the
“sub” (subject) claim of a JWT, for instance.)
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:39 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [jose] Working Group last call on draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint
I am wondering why this needs to be tagged as a thumbprint. Is there a reason
why this draft should not be presented as – here is a way to compute a kid
value for a key that will produce a unique value. This would be similar to how
the computations are presented in PKIX for the subject key identifier extension.
Jim
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
