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

+1

=nat via iPhone

May 31, 2013 7:23、Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> のメッセージ:

  It’s not that they affect the JOSE processing rules – it’s that they make
it easier for JOSE applications to have more consistent processing rules.

This brings us back full circle.  I believe that Jim’s original reasoning
from the 2011-2012 discussion of this still applies:

[JLS] If it is believe that a parameter this list is going to be “commonly”
used by many different profilers, then I believe that the core items needs
to be done the in the base specification.  I would therefore not be in
favor of punting it out to somebody else.  The only exception would be if
we are going to have a very light core and a “real” core specs.  In this
case the very light core spec could punt to the “real” core spec.  Having
said that I think that a registry would be a good idea.

                                                                Cheers,

                                                                -- Mike

*From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org<jose-bounces@ietf.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Richard Barnes
*Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:37 PM
*To:* Anthony Nadalin
*Cc:* Mike Jones; Richer, Justin P.; jose@ietf.org; Jim Schaad
*Subject:* Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

If they don't affect JOSE, then they shouldn't be in the base spec.

--Richard

On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

I agree that they are fine as-is. We can and should be clearer that these
fields don’t effect the JOSE processing but are application fields.

*From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'jose-bounces@ietf.org');>[mailto:
jose-bounces@ietf.org<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'jose-bounces@ietf.org');>]
*On Behalf Of *Richer, Justin P.
*Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:31 AM
*To:* Mike Jones
*Cc:* Jim Schaad;
jose@ietf.org<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'jose@ietf.org');>
*Subject:* Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

I think that the two fields are fine as they're currently defined, as Mike
describes below. They're hanging points for information that other
applications of the JOSE stack can use to switch functionality out, and as
such they should be well-defined and optional to allow general libraries
and applications to do their jobs.

 -- Justin

On May 29, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:

 “typ” declares what the type of THIS OBJECT is.

“cty” declares what the type of THE PAYLOAD or THE PLAINTEXT is.

They’re different.

In the JWT case, a JWT Claims Set (the normal JWT Payload), which is a JSON
Object containing Claims, is a completely different data structure from a
JWT, which is a dot-separated list of base64url encoded fields.  The “cty”
represents the former; the “typ” represents the latter.

                                                                -- Mike

*From:* Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:43 PM
*To:* Mike Jones; jose@ietf.org
*Subject:* RE: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

Can you justify why the JWT spec shou

    _______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose