Re: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-05.txt

Chairs/AD: Should I go ahead and rev this, or handle these along with IETF
LC comments?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:

> I'm just nitting for now:
>
> 1) s2
>
> OLD:
>
> The JOSE working group charter calls for the group to define three basic
> JSON object formats:
>
> NEW:
>
> Three basic JSON object formats are initially defined, with more possibly
> defined later:
>
> 2) s2
>
> OLD:
>
> The JOSE working group items intended to describe these formats are JSON
> Web Signature (JWS), JSON Web Encryption (JWE), and JSON Web Key (JWK),
> respectively [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-**signature] [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-
> **encryption] [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-key].
>
> NEW:
>
> The JSON Web Signature (JWS), JSON Web Encryption (JWE), and JSON Web Key
> (JWK) specifications, respectively [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-**signature]
> [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-**encryption] [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-key],
> define these formats.
>
> 3) s3: Not sure the following is entirely correct for DH-based algs:
>
>  o  The JOSE encrypted object format must support object encryption in
>     the case where the sender has only a public key for the receiver.
>
> Shouldn't this also include the case where the sender has their own public
> key and the receiver's public key.
>
> spt
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/jose<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>