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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

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:* [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');> [mailto:[e-mail]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Richer, Justin P.
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:31 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Jim Schaad; [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');>
> *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 <[e-mail]>
> 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:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:43 PM
> *To:* Mike Jones; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field****
>
>  ****
>
> Can you justify why the JWT spec shou
>
>