Re: [jose] #27: member names MUST be unique needs additional text

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 27, 2013, at 07:26, "Manger, James H" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> each recipient MUST either reject messages with duplicate names or accept only the last name.

Maybe only gatekeeper functions need validating parsers?

gatekeeper function: A processing step that derives (makes/validates)
an assertion from a JOSE object and then moves forward that JOSE
object unchanged to the next processing step (e.g., to preserve a
signature)

validating parser: A JSON parser that rejects JSON that might be
interpreted differently by another JSON parser

Are we sure that the duplicate key issue is the only one that needs to
be checked by a validating parser?  A number of candidate issues:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg01068.html

E.g., what about issue 3.8?  If a gatekeeper function derives an
asssertion about a JOSE object mentioning twitter ID
10765432100123456789, but the next step thinks it is about
10765432100123458000?

https://dev.twitter.com/docs/twitter-ids-json-and-snowflake

The list in msg01068 also is not complete for our purposes, e.g., it
mentions normalization issues only in passing.  A validating parser
sure wants to reject anything that isn't already normalized Unicode.

Maybe gatekeeper functions are not such a bright idea?

Grüße, Carsten