Subject: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 16:43:50 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Javascript Object Signing and Encryption Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : JSON Web Key (JWK)
	Author(s)       : Michael B. Jones
	Filename        : draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-02.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2012-05-12

   A JSON Web Key (JWK) is a JSON data structure that represents a
   public key.  This specification also defines a JSON Web Key Set (JWK
   Set) JSON data structure for representing a set of JWKs.
   Cryptographic algorithms and identifiers used with this specification
   are enumerated in the separate JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)
   specification.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-02.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key/

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 08:59:54 -0700

In scanning this document I came across the following statement:

   The member names within a JWK MUST be unique; objects with duplicate
   member names MUST be rejected.

Given the discussion that we just had on JSON parsers - is there any reason
to believe that current parsers would possibly enforce this?

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [jose] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-02.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Javascript Object Signing and Encryption
> Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:35:59 -0400

Here's some comments (again I'll try not to duplicate Jim's):

1) s2 & Requirements Language: The RFC editor is going to move the 
Requirements Language section later on so you might as well save them 
the trouble and just make it part of s2.

2) s3: This is probably a style thing, but I think it's probably better 
to talk about the structure first and then provide an example.  It's 
just going to make everybody ask you to define/explain x in that section.

3) s4: Totally agree with Jim's comment #4 on this section.  Applies to 
s5 as well.

4) s4: Same concerns as for algorithms about the collision resistant 
namespace and how the registry is set up.

5) s4.2: Assume "both" should be defined here.

6) s7: If the kid is not supposed to be generated in a way to make it 
unique it's worth pointing this out in s7.

spt