Re: [stir] JWT/JSON (was - Re: Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>> Why isn't it just stuffed into a single header field, like STIR-Signature: or the like?
>> That was my question too. Something like:
>>
>> 	Identity:<the-whole-piece>
>>
>> But, at the end of the day, I want something that works, and Jon promised to 
>> describe how the "splitting" works in the next revision of the draft.
>
> Not just how, but why.
>
> What you and I are describing is simple and direct.  Splitting things adds another step.  Extra steps need justification.

I guess Jon should reply to that question, but one reasons was related to the suggestion (I don't think that WG has made a decision, but please correct me if I'm wrong) that it should be optional to send the headers representation of the JWS, as that information (cipher suite etc) can be found in other SIP elements. However, Appendix F of RFC 7575 is unclear on whether it's allowed remove the headers representation from the JWS - the Appendix seems to only talk about not sending the payload representation (which, in the case of SIP, can also be found in other SIP elements). So, there could be cases were one would only send the signature representation of the JWS. 

Regards,

Christer