Re: [jose] JWK Elliptic Curve key representations and new curves

+1

No need to hold up the base specs.

Note that if we repurpose/generalize "EC", then old parsers will reject
JWKs without "y" elements.  But that's OK, because they wouldn't understand
the new curve anyway.

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:

>  +1, this makes the most sense given that JWK is a highly extensible format
>
>
> On 08/14/2014 05:27 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>  +1
>   ------------------------------
> From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: ‎8/‎14/‎2014 2:26 PM
> To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>; Mike Scott <mike.scott@certivox.com>; Trevor
> Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>; Daniel Holth <dholth@gmail.com>; Mike Jones
> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>; jose@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [jose] JWK Elliptic Curve key representations and new curves
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 14/08/14 14:43, Richard Barnes wrote:
> >> It would be very much preferable, however, to keep this on ice until the
> >> CFRG debate settles.
> >
> > Yep. That'd be sensible. Time enough when CFRG have
> > produced a result.
>
> Ok, JWA should move forward into last call once the shepherd report is
> posted and this can be added into the registry and may require a separate
> draft.  Does that sound good?
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
>
> >
> > S.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list
> > jose@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing listjose@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>