On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 23:07 +0200, Vladimir Dzhuvinov wrote: > Great! > > The "k" parameter appears to be mandatory for "oct" JWKs. How can we > reconcile that with the p11 spec? Ideas? > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#section-6.4.1
I wonder if an empty value would be properly handled by implementations or would cause them to leak information instead of encrypting it, or worse fall over themselves. Worst case we could define a new type "hwoct" ? Sounds a bit silly tho. Simo. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
