Re: [jose] #114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter
"jose issue tracker" <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 07 November 2013 18:16 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014CC21E81EE for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:16:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YQlsoCosaAVE for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:16:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B139E11E8261 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39884 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1VeU5t-0005Fv-2V; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 19:14:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: jose issue tracker <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com
X-Trac-Project: jose
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:14:13 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/jose/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/114#comment:1
Message-ID: <076.aa88bfac951c9e94453f5d55028400f5@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.72a07d6d6528788a71f3544d30717030@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 114
In-Reply-To: <061.72a07d6d6528788a71f3544d30717030@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com, jose@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: mbj@microsoft.com, n-sakimura@nri.co.jp, ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20131107181420.B139E11E8261@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:14:20 -0800
Resent-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] #114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:16:14 -0000
#114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter Description changed by ietf@augustcellars.com: Old description: > A. What is meant by an extension to this specification - is that only a > v2 or it is just anyone who defines a new header parameter? > > B. Sentence #2 needs a grammar re-write > > C. Does it make a difference if they are unprotected header fields? > Should they be required to be protected? > > D. If you are looking at the JWA document, then you need to say that this > is just the first version and not a revision to it. > > E. re-write MUST NOT to be MUST if possible - 2119 language issue > > F. Remove redundant statement on where it occurs. New description: A. What is meant by an extension to this specification - is that only a v2 or it is just anyone who defines a new header parameter? B. Sentence #2 needs a grammar re-write C. Does it make a difference if they are unprotected header fields? Should they be required to be protected? * WON'T FIX D. If you are looking at the JWA document, then you need to say that this is just the first version and not a revision to it. E. re-write MUST NOT to be MUST if possible - 2119 language issue * DUP of #70 F. Remove redundant statement on where it occurs. -- -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- ietf@augustcellars.com | signature@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: json-web- | Version: signature | Resolution: Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/114#comment:1> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
- [jose] #114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical) Hea… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical)… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical)… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #114: Section 4.1.10 "crit" (Critical)… jose issue tracker