Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with COMMENT)

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 12:53 UTC

From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: Ac/nrbDnmkMw3ltWTq6nLKbNLPyspg==
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:52:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BB0D50F@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.37 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=131.107.125.37; helo=mail.microsoft.com;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/GT7nIeDHiekIV4eC5uB6Cth7Gdg
Cc: "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption@tools.ietf.org>, "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

This clarification has been applied to the -34 drafts.

				Thanks again,
				-- Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:54 AM
> To: Stephen Farrell; The IESG
> Cc: jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> encryption@tools.ietf.org; jose@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> encryption-33: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks for your review, Stephen.  I've added the working group to the thread so
> they're aware of your comment.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:56 AM
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> > encryption@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on
> > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-
> > 33: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33: No Objection
> >
> > 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-encryption/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > 1.1/3.1/7.1: I think you should define BASE64URL(null) as null so that
> > one knows that one can see ".." in compact representations, e.g if
> > there this is no AAD or IV. Adding an example of such would be good
> > too. Or, if ".." is not allowed, then you need to say that clearly.
> > (This could be clarified loads of ways, I don't care which you pick.)
> 
> Good idea.  I'll try to figure out an appropriate place to editorially do this -
> maybe right at the definition.  This is definitely used in practice.
> 
> 				Thanks again,
> 				-- Mike
>

Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Mike Jones
Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Mike Jones