Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Mike,
>
> ...
>
> JWK objects are already used in production to distribute public keys.  
> For instance, the keys for Salesforce's identity services are in JWK 
> format at https://login.salesforce.com/id/keys. (Note that I'm not 
> saying that just because the current specs are in use, that no changes 
> are possible.)
>
> if not that, what is the point of this comment?
>
> The point of the comment was simply to answer your question "What is 
> the existing software to which you and Tim refer...?"
>
And I have not yet received an answer to that question, in terms I can 
understand.

Let me try again.

What is the impediment to requiring a receiver of a JWK object to reject 
the object if
it contains more than one instance of a key?

Is it a limitation of a parser that are completely independent of the 
JOSE work that defines
the JWK objects, or is it the result of how folks have written code to 
parse such objects?

If the answer is the first clause, then I understand the reluctance to 
impose that requirement.

If the answer is the latter, then this is an argument based on early 
implementation
of an IETF spec, and that is not an good reason to accommodate such 
sloppiness.

Steve