To be clear, when people say "dropping them", you mean "changing from four MIME types to two", right?
Dropping the MIME types altogether is not an option, as Matt noted. --Richard On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Brian Campbell <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm okay dropping them. > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Edmund Jay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 in favor of dropping >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Mike Jones <[email protected]> >> *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tue, June 18, 2013 6:42:15 PM >> *Subject:* [jose] Should we keep or remove the JOSE JWS and JWE MIME >> types? >> >> The JWS and JWE documents currently define these MIME types for the >> convenience of applications that may want to use them: >> >> application/jws >> >> application/jws+json >> >> application/jwe >> >> application/jwe+json >> >> >> >> That being said, I’m not aware of any uses of these by applications at >> present. Thus, I think that makes it fair game to ask whether we want to >> keep them or remove them – in which case, if applications ever needed them, >> they could define them later. >> >> >> >> Another dimension of this question for JWS and JWE is that it’s not clear >> that the four types application/jws, application/jws+json, application/jwe, >> and application/jwe+json are even the right ones. It might be more useful >> to have generic application/jose and application/jose+json types, which >> could hold either JWS or JWE objects respectively using the compact or JSON >> serializations (although I’m not advocating adding them at this time). >> >> >> >> Having different JWS versus JWE MIME types apparently did contribute to >> at least Dick’s confusion about the purpose of the “typ” field, so deleting >> them could help eliminate this possibility of confusion in the future. >> Thus, I’m increasingly convinced we should get rid of the JWS and JWE types >> and leave it up to applications to define the types they need, when they >> need them. >> >> >> >> Do people have use cases for these four MIME types now or should we leave >> them to future specs to define, if needed? >> >> >> >> -- Mike >> >> >> >> P.S. For completeness, I’ll add that the JWK document also defines these >> MIME types: >> >> application/jwk+json >> >> application/jwk-set+json >> >> >> >> There are already clear use cases for these types, so I’m not advocating >> deleting them, but wanted to call that out explicitly. For instance, when >> retrieving a JWK Set document referenced by a “jku” header parameter, I >> believe that the result should use the application/jwk-set+json type. (In >> fact, I’ll add this to the specs, unless there are any objections.) >> Likewise, draft-miller-jose-jwe-protected-jwk-02 already uses >> application/jwk+json. Both could also be as “cty” values when encrypting >> JWKs and JWK Sets, in contexts where that that would be useful. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
