Re: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-05.txt

I have already responded on item 3.   1 & 2 should be deal with as part of
either AD comments or IETF last comments.  Id on't see these as blocking
right now.

Jim

From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Barnes
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:14 AM
To: Sean Turner
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-05.txt

Chairs/AD: Should I go ahead and rev this, or handle these along with IETF
LC comments?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:

I'm just nitting for now:

1) s2

OLD:

The JOSE working group charter calls for the group to define three basic
JSON object formats:

NEW:

Three basic JSON object formats are initially defined, with more possibly
defined later:

2) s2

OLD:

The JOSE working group items intended to describe these formats are JSON Web
Signature (JWS), JSON Web Encryption (JWE), and JSON Web Key (JWK),
respectively [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-signature]
[I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-encryption] [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-key].

NEW:

The JSON Web Signature (JWS), JSON Web Encryption (JWE), and JSON Web Key
(JWK) specifications, respectively [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-signature]
[I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-encryption] [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-key], define
these formats.

3) s3: Not sure the following is entirely correct for DH-based algs:

 o  The JOSE encrypted object format must support object encryption in
    the case where the sender has only a public key for the receiver.

Shouldn't this also include the case where the sender has their own public
key and the receiver's public key.

spt

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