Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

[Dick Hardt <[e-mail]>]

Well, I have been using, but now realize the spec changed or I was confused.

I had been setting "typ" to be either "JWE" or "JWS" depending on the type
of token I was creating or parsing as it was easier than looking at "alg"

As currently defined, I don't see value in "typ".

-- Dick



On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In reading the documents, I am trying to understand the justification for
> having the “typ” header parameter in the JOSE documents.****
>
> ** **
>
> The purpose of the field is to hold the type of the object.  In the past,
> I believe that values which should now be placed in the cty field (such as
> “JWT”) were placed in this field as well.  However the parameter is
> optional and an implementation cannot rely on its being present.  This
> means that for all practical purposes all of the code to determine the
> value of the type field from the values of the alg and enc fields.  If the
> field was mandatory then this code would disappear at a fairly small space
> cost and I can understand why the parameter would be present.****
>
> ** **
>
> Can anybody justify why this field should be present in the document – or
> should it just disappear?****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>


-- 
-- Dick