Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:54 AM
> To: Richard Barnes; The IESG
> Cc: jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org; jose@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> signature@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> signature-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks for your review, Richard.  I'm repeating my previous responses from
my
> Thursday reply, but this time using ">" quoting rather than colors, for
better
> readability by people not using HTML-enabled mail readers...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:22 PM
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org; jose@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-jose-json-web- signature@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-
> 33:
> > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Appendix A.5.
> > I would prefer if this example could be removed.  JWT is the only use
> > case for Unsecured JWS right now, and there's already an example in that
> document.
> 
> Mike> Given that it's important that implementers using them understand
> Unsecured JWSs, there is motivation to retain the example.  I'd be
interested in
> what others in the working group think, given that there was substantial
> support for retaining this functionality when its removal was proposed.
> 

I have no problems with there being a reference to the JWT document for the
example.

> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list
> > jose@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> 
> 				Thanks again!
> 				-- Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose