Re: [jose] #15: Broken examples in JWE / JWS

The question isn't whether the semantic of "kid" is sufficiently defined.
 The question is when it should be required.  I'm not even saying that
"kid" should be required in all cases -- just that the recipient should
have clear instructions about what to do in all cases.

--Richard

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM, jose issue tracker <
trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:

> #15: Broken examples in JWE / JWS
>
>
> Comment (by michael.jones@microsoft.com):
>
>  Speaking as an individual, I'm not adverse to adding the use of the "kid"
>  parameter to one or more of the examples, but it shouldn't be in all of
>  them, as in many use cases, the key to be used is communicated by other
>  means than the "kid" (including by using some of the other header
>  parameters also defined by the specifications).
>
>  I'll also point out that the working group has already determined that the
>  "kid" parameter is adequately defined, so that aspect of this issue has
>  already been considered and is closed.  See "CLOSED: Is KID sufficently
>  defined" at http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>  archive/web/jose/current/msg01218.html.
>
> --
> -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  rlb@ipv.sx   |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
>      Type:  defect       |  encryption@tools.ietf.org
>  Priority:  minor        |      Status:  new
> Component:  json-web-    |   Milestone:
>   encryption             |     Version:
>  Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
>  Keywords:               |
> -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/15#comment:2>
> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>