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

It's fine for your application to specify that it's required for your use case.  Not applications need it, so they shouldn't be forced to pay the space penalty of an unnecessary field.

                                                                -- Mike

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:56 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

I use it all the time and my code would barf if it was not there.

I think it should be required rather than be a hint if it is going ot be there.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com<mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>> wrote:
I think the values just changed

However the way you are using it would be an argument to say that it should be a required field.  Are you just using it as a hint if it exists and then looking at the rest of the fields if it is not present?

Jim

From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

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 <ietf@augustcellars.com<mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>> 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
jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

--
-- Dick

--
-- Dick