Re: [jose] #16: URI identifying a specific key in a JWK set

["jose issue tracker" <[e-mail]>]

#16: URI identifying a specific key in a JWK set


Comment (by [e-mail]):

 In order to evaluate this, we need to get a more detailed proposal than
 what we currently have.  Examples of issues that have not been dealt with
 at this point are
 1.  Syntax of the fragment
 2.  dealing with duplicate values within a JWK structure
 3.  Definition of a new media type - is this required or not - justify
 either postion
 4.  Explain why the proposal is "better" than the current ability to have
 a url plus the kid in the message.
 5.  Discuss what happens if the fragment is not present on the url or if
 the fragment is not findable in the resultant document.  If the fragment
 is going to be manditory does them mean that we should be doing a new
 scheme instead as fragments cannot be required under the current URL
 syntax defintions (or at least that is my reading).


 Please flesh out your proposal more so that it can be fully evaluated.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [e-mail]    |  [e-mail]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  key                    |  Resolution:
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/16#comment:2>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>