[OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7519 (8060)

[Pieter Kasselman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks David and Brian.

Unless there are any concerns with adopting the alternative text, I would suggest the following for the errata in section 7.2 bullet 5:

Original Text
-------------
   5.   Verify that the resulting JOSE Header includes only parameters
        and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and
        supported or that are specified as being ignored when not
        understood.

Corrected Text
--------------
   5.  Verify the resulting JOSE Header according to RFC7515 or RFC7516.

Cheers

Pieter

From: David Waite <david=[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday 5 August 2024 22:43
To: Pieter Kasselman <pieter.kasselman=[e-mail]>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=[e-mail]>; RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7519 (8060)




On Aug 5, 2024, at 1:52 PM, Pieter Kasselman <pieter.kasselman=[e-mail]<mailto:pieter.kasselman=[e-mail]>> wrote:

I tried to keep the changes to additional text that would scope the processing rules more precisely for the JWT/JWS/JWE cases (point 7 in the processing steps references JWS and JWE separately, so thought I would propose text that does something similar to that). The idea of additional text is that a reader who is familiar may find it easier to process the delta.

However, if we want to change the text, I like your second option:

"Verify the resulting JOSE Header according to RFC7515 or RFC7516."

I don’t think we should delete the bullet completely.

Cheers

Pieter

I prefer this over the current text, which might be incorrectly construed to provide counter guidance to the “crit” protected header parameter.

-DW