Re: [jose] #84: Section 7.1 JSON Web Key Parameters Registry
"jose issue tracker" <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org> Tue, 12 November 2013 03:27 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B1B21E8099 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:27:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0EXGBUa59tL for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C8711E81A5 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40185 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1Vg4c9-00056h-JN; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:26:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: jose issue tracker <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com
X-Trac-Project: jose
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:25:48 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/jose/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/84#comment:2
Message-ID: <076.9c419c295d1c4eaa72d60edc6654ebfd@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.2c8e43041b4a771491d9dbf782ad3a03@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 84
In-Reply-To: <061.2c8e43041b4a771491d9dbf782ad3a03@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com, jose@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: mbj@microsoft.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20131112032702.16C8711E81A5@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:27:01 -0800
Resent-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] #84: Section 7.1 JSON Web Key Parameters Registry
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:27:03 -0000
#84: Section 7.1 JSON Web Key Parameters Registry Changes (by ietf@augustcellars.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Old description: > A. This section is missing any mention of criteria by which an expert is > to determine if the registration makes any sense. > > B. I have a problem with the word reserved. To me this is not the same > as "reserved word" used in computer languages. To me this implies > something that is set aside for future use. This is not consistent with > how the word is used in this content. In the case of the first sentence > it can just be deleted. You have a registry for JWK parameter names. > > * FIXED > > C. Is it permissible for a "private" field to be registered without a > public specification attached to it? It would appear not, but this may > be desirable behavior in the future. New description: A. This section is missing any mention of criteria by which an expert is to determine if the registration makes any sense. * FIXED B. I have a problem with the word reserved. To me this is not the same as "reserved word" used in computer languages. To me this implies something that is set aside for future use. This is not consistent with how the word is used in this content. In the case of the first sentence it can just be deleted. You have a registry for JWK parameter names. * FIXED C. Is it permissible for a "private" field to be registered without a public specification attached to it? It would appear not, but this may be desirable behavior in the future. * WON'T FIX -- -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- ietf@augustcellars.com | key@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: json-web- | Version: key | Resolution: fixed Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/84#comment:2> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
- [jose] #84: Section 7.1 JSON Web Key Parameters R… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #84: Section 7.1 JSON Web Key Paramete… jose issue tracker
- Re: [jose] #84: Section 7.1 JSON Web Key Paramete… jose issue tracker