IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ted Lemon's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-27: (with COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 08 October 2014 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814741A8AE5; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uK6VfOoQeSlp; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FE7B1A8AE1; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C0C1B81B4; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A02C53E070; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:30:38 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAF5BE4@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:30:34 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0F067F91-8088-4E49-872C-E9A365BEE717@nominum.com>
References: <20141002135827.27947.4504.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAF0C41@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <0DB7566C-CEFD-49E3-AD23-83E4EE5C1D01@nominum.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAF362F@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <055A0022-9C9D-4D15-865F-0379BD75E938@nominum.com> <9CEAAB3D-211B-4401-8C7A-F7BCAFA1E9D7@ve7jtb.com> <0F38FF48-E749-427A-BBDB-4048FC9A3AEA@nominum.com> <99D20D7F-0EEE-41B3-9FF3-C75F85BEED56@ve7jtb.com> <48C989BE-6EAB-4EFE-A354-1F56F51B6F24@nominum.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAF5BE4@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/3ylKLpXgjXnKjGnGmjcKg2dxtug
Cc: "oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ted Lemon's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-27: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 01:30:51 -0000

On Oct 7, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I'll plan to take the action described yesterday that you said you were OK with - adding language about "If both signing and encryption are necessary" in order to make the context of this advice clear.  I believe that that will improve the understanding of this guidance by many readers.

Sounds good, thanks!   It's hard to keep track of the discussion once the review is done... :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email