Re: [jose] #68: Section 3 - JSON Web Key (JWK) Format

["jose issue tracker" <[e-mail]>]

#68: Section 3 - JSON Web Key (JWK) Format

Changes (by [e-mail]):

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


Old description:

> A. The first two sentences are not readable - and may be somewhat
> contradictory.  Suggested re-write as
>
>    ""A JSON Web Key (JWK) is a JSON object.
> The members of the object represent different properties of the key.
> These properties include the value of the key, the usage of the key and
> so forth.
> This document defines a set of parameters that are not algorithm
> specific, and thus common to many keys.""
>
> B. member names within is ambiguous - does this mean within each
> lexicographical scope or completely?
>
> * WON'T FIX - since we don't have nesting at this time, the language is
> not currently ambiguous - it can get fixed when it becomes ambiguous
> again.
>
> C. In the sentence  Additional members MAY - this may is not a protocol
> requirement.
>
> D. In the sentence - If not understood - please clarify what "they" is
> referring to
>
> * WON'T FIX - Punt to the RFC Editor
>
> E. In paragraph 3 - sentence 2/3 - First you say they may be reused -
> then you tell me they must be collision resistant - please clarify this
> text
>
> F. In paragraph 3 - This should be a reference to the registry not point
> to the section 7.1
>
> * WON'T FIX - My personal peeve

New description:

 A. The first two sentences are not readable - and may be somewhat
 contradictory.  Suggested re-write as

    ""A JSON Web Key (JWK) is a JSON object.
 The members of the object represent different properties of the key.
 These properties include the value of the key, the usage of the key and so
 forth.
 This document defines a set of parameters that are not algorithm specific,
 and thus common to many keys.""

 * Didn't fix

 B. member names within is ambiguous - does this mean within each
 lexicographical scope or completely?

 * WON'T FIX - since we don't have nesting at this time, the language is
 not currently ambiguous - it can get fixed when it becomes ambiguous
 again.

 C. In the sentence  Additional members MAY - this may is not a protocol
 requirement.

 * FIXED

 D. In the sentence - If not understood - please clarify what "they" is
 referring to

 * WON'T FIX - Punt to the RFC Editor

 E. In paragraph 3 - sentence 2/3 - First you say they may be reused - then
 you tell me they must be collision resistant - please clarify this text

 F. In paragraph 3 - This should be a reference to the registry not point
 to the section 7.1

 * WON'T FIX - My personal peeve

--

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [e-mail] |  [e-mail]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  Editorial    |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  key                    |  Resolution:  fixed
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/68#comment:2>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>