Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT)

["Jim Schaad" <[e-mail]>]

 

 

From: jose [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:41 AM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: [e-mail];
[e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT)

 

These comments have been addressed in the -34 drafts.

 

                                                            Thanks again,

                                                            -- Mike

 

From: Mike Jones 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:51 AM
To: 'Barry Leiba'
Cc: The IESG; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Barry Leiba's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT)

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:44 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: The IESG; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-32: (with COMMENT)

 

> The intent is b.  I propose that the words "This member MUST be 

> present, even if the array elements contain only the empty JSON object 

> "{}"" be changed to "This member MUST be present with exactly one 

> array element per recipient, even if some or all of the array element 

> values are the empty JSON object {}".  Would that be clearer?

 

I think that would have helped me.  Again, another small point.

 

OK

 

[JLS]  I think that this language may not be correct.  Did you mean to imply
that the following is a legal value for the "recipients" property.
"[{},{}]"

It appears that there can be any number of empty array elements can be
present.

 

If this is not the case I will try and look at proposing some text.

 

 

Barry

 

                                                            Thanks again,

                                                            -- Mike