Re: [jose] Feedback request on jose tracker issue #8: Should we add a "spi" header field?

2 or 3

All of the "1" responses are missing the point of SPI -- if you want to be
able to omit fields (as people seem to want to do), then you need a switch
to turn off "stand-alone mode".

So responding "1" here is the same as responding "1" on the ISSUE-15 poll,
that at least one key indicator MUST be present.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>wrote:

>  ****Issue #8 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/8 proposes
> adding an “spi” (security parameters index) header parameter to the JWS and
> JWE specifications.  This modification to the JOSE formats would allow for
> signaling that pre-negotiated cryptographic parameters are being used,
> rather than including those parameters in the JWS or JWE header.  This
> proposal has been written up as
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-jose-spi-00.****
>
> ** **
>
> Which of these best describes your preferences on this issue?****
>
> 1.  Have draft-barnes-jose-spi remain a separate specification that could
> optionally also be supported by JWS and JWE implementations.****
>
> 2.  Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications
> as a mandatory feature.****
>
> 3.  Incorporate draft-barnes-jose-spi into the JWS and JWE specifications
> as an optional feature.****
>
> 4.  Another resolution (please specify in detail).****
>
> 0.  I need more information to decide.****
> Your reply is requested by Friday, April 19th or earlier.
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>