Subject: [jose] #95: Use of proper JSON terminology

From: "jose issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:21:21 -0000

#95: Use of proper JSON terminology

 The current set of terminology uses terms that are lined to the JavaScript
 specification rather than the IETF JSON specification.  This needs to be
 discussed and a decision made.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [email-masked] |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |    Version:
  signature              |   Keywords:
 Severity:  -            |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/95>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>

---

From: "jose issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:25:35 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 The current intent is to consistently use the terminology in RFC 4627.  If
 you can point out specific deviations from that terminology, that would be
 useful.  Thanks.

  signature              |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/95#comment:1>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>