Subject: Re: [jose] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: (with COMMENT)

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:42:10 +0000

These review comments are addressed in the -34 draft, including using [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>.  Thanks again for your review.

                                                            -- Mike

From: jose [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:57 PM
To: Alissa Cooper; The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [jose] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for your review, Alissa.  I’ve added the working group to this thread so they're aware of your comments.  Replies are inline below…

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:24 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

== Section 2 ==

"These terms defined by the JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE]

   specification are incorporated into this specification: "JSON Web

   Encryption (JWE)" and "JWE Compact Serialization"."

Seems like "JWE JSON Serialization" should be included in this list as well.

Good catch – thanks.

== Section 4.2 ==

"As indicated by the common registry, JWSs and JWEs share a common

   Header Parameter space; when a parameter is used by both

   specifications, its usage must be compatible between the

   specifications."

Since both the JWS and JWE specifications are on their way to becoming RFCs, would it make more sense to say "its usage is compatible between the specifications"? Or is this for the future when new parameters may get defined?

(Per my response to your related comment on the JWE spec, this language applies to both initial and subsequent IANA registrations.)

== Section 9 ==

Do we use [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>? I usually use [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>.

                                                            -- Mike