[jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


The "crit" point raised in the gen-art review and maybe elsewhere
is I think correct but I don't think section 6 of -08 is a good
resolution of this topic. However, I'll clear if this is the WG
consensus but it's hard to know that's the case for text just
added yesterday. To resolve this discuss we just need to see what
the WG list says about the new text.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


- abstract: the description of the update to 7519 is odd. It
seems to be saying "Here we define a thing. This specification
updates 7519 to say you must not use this thing." but prohibiting
is an odd verb to use there. (Since it wasn't previously there to
be allowed or not.)

- section 6: "It is intended that application profiles specify up
front whether" "intended" is very wishy washy and "up front"
makes no sense at all.