Re: [jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Parameter

"jose issue tracker" <trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 10 October 2013 06:45 UTC

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>
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:44:38 -0000
Message-ID: <076.3eb84f8d80bfc282aef73f73cac2c69e@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.bd1c7f505b1fc14cae750516c3c24ce8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <061.bd1c7f505b1fc14cae750516c3c24ce8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Resent-To: mbj@microsoft.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20131010064441.40C5411E81B7@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:44:40 -0700
Resent-From: trac+jose@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Parameter

#71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Parameter

Changes (by ietf@augustcellars.com)

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed


Old description:

> A. What are the requirements for defining a new use string.  Is there a
> registry for this, are they supposed to be collision resistant?
>
> * FIXED: A registry now exists for this field.
>
> B. Use of member is OPTIONAL does not convey sufficient information. For
> whom is it optional?
>
> C. What happens if use is absent is not covered in the document.
>
> D. John Bradley made a big deal at the Berlin meeting about the fact that
> this needs to be a single value rather than a multi-value field.  The
> reasoning behind this was that allowing for multiple values was an evil
> thing.  This would imply that this is not an optional field but is, at a
> minimum a SHOULD field with heavy language about when one would not
> specify a value.  all uses (absent) is worse than some usages (multi) is
> worse than one usage (single).

New description:

 A. What are the requirements for defining a new use string.  Is there a
 registry for this, are they supposed to be collision resistant?

 * FIXED: A registry now exists for this field.

 B. Use of member is OPTIONAL does not convey sufficient information. For
 whom is it optional?

 * FIXED - no longer optional field

 C. What happens if use is absent is not covered in the document.

 * WON'T FIX - probably implicit that all uses are allowed

 D. John Bradley made a big deal at the Berlin meeting about the fact that
 this needs to be a single value rather than a multi-value field.  The
 reasoning behind this was that allowing for multiple values was an evil
 thing.  This would imply that this is not an optional field but is, at a
 minimum a SHOULD field with heavy language about when one would not
 specify a value.  all uses (absent) is worse than some usages (multi) is
 worse than one usage (single).

 * FIXED - it is not a should so it meets minimum requirements

--

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 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/71#comment:2>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>

[jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Paramet… jose issue tracker
Re: [jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Par… jose issue tracker
Re: [jose] #71: Section 3.2 - "use" (Key Use) Par… jose issue tracker