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

I think the values just changed

However the way you are using it would be an argument to say that it should
be a required field.  Are you just using it as a hint if it exists and then
looking at the rest of the fields if it is not present?

Jim

From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field

Well, I have been using, but now realize the spec changed or I was confused.

I had been setting "typ" to be either "JWE" or "JWS" depending on the type
of token I was creating or parsing as it was easier than looking at "alg"

As currently defined, I don't see value in "typ".

-- Dick

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

In reading the documents, I am trying to understand the justification for
having the "typ" header parameter in the JOSE documents.

The purpose of the field is to hold the type of the object.  In the past, I
believe that values which should now be placed in the cty field (such as
"JWT") were placed in this field as well.  However the parameter is optional
and an implementation cannot rely on its being present.  This means that for
all practical purposes all of the code to determine the value of the type
field from the values of the alg and enc fields.  If the field was mandatory
then this code would disappear at a fairly small space cost and I can
understand why the parameter would be present.

Can anybody justify why this field should be present in the document - or
should it just disappear?

Jim

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

-- 
-- Dick 