Subject: Re: [jose] #170: Section 4.1.2 "enc" (Encryption Method) Header Parameter

From: "jose issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:40:30 -0000

#170: Section 4.1.2 "enc" (Encryption Method) Header Parameter

Description changed by [email-masked]:

Old description:

> A.  s/algorithm used/algorithm that was used/
>
> B.  Is there a conceptual difference in how errors are reported when
> rejecting because an algorithm is not supported vs it is badly formed.
> There is no discussion anywhere on errors to be returned to the
> application.  Does there need to be one?
>
> C.  See comments on section 4.1.1 about the registry
>
> D.  s/understood/processed/

New description:

 A.  s/algorithm used/algorithm that was used/

 * WON'T FIX - personal peeve

 B.  Is there a conceptual difference in how errors are reported when
 rejecting because an algorithm is not supported vs it is badly formed.
 There is no discussion anywhere on errors to be returned to the
 application.  Does there need to be one?

 * WON'T FIX - we have never had any discussion on error handling.  We
 won't start now.

 C.  See comments on section 4.1.1 about the registry

 D.  s/understood/processed/

 * FIXED -

--

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/170#comment:1>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>