Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05

The document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Upon  re-review, the addition of section 3.4 raises a question of 
clarity.  As written, the text says that the hash function matters only 
to the original thumbprint provider.  Should there be a little bit of 
text talking about the need for the hash function to be the same for 
thumbprints to be comparable, or, phrased alternatively, that 
thumbprints with different hashes must not be compared?  If there were 
no need for consistent production of the thumbprint, there would be no 
need for a Proposed Standard for the document.

Yours,
Joel

The new section 3.4
On 6/19/15 12:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
>      JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 19-June-2015
> IETF LC End Date: N/A
> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>
> Summary: The internet draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
> Standard.
>
> [Note to readers:
> This review is provided because the spreadsheet said so.  The draft
> appears not to be in last call yet.
> Also, this reviewer did not attempt to second-guess the design choices
> made by the WG.  The choices are well-explain, and I understand it to be
> the WGs job to make them.]
>
> Major issues: N/A
>
> Minor issues: N/A
>
> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>