Works for me. As long as folks think "public key types" will be enough understood. Seems like it would be.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks for noticing this. How about “members that are common to all > public key types”?**** > > ** ** > > You’re right about the section numbering. I’ll fix that.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks again,* > *** > > -- Mike**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Brian Campbell > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:34 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [jose] x5c, x5u, x5t don't apply to all key types**** > > ** ** > > Section 3 of JWK [1] defines "members that are common to all key types" > and includes among those members x5c, x5u and x5t. However, the x5X > parameters are relevant only for half the key types defined in JWA - they > don't really make sense for "oct" [2] or "PBKDF2" [3]. **** > > Not sure the best way to address this but it seems kind of awkward as it > is. Maybe move them into the EC and RSA type definitions (or something > common to both) or somehow add some qualifying text saying that they can > only be used with key types utilizing public keys?**** > > As I was looking up the URLs below I noticed that the section alignment in > section 5 of JWA is a little off. I think 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 should probably > be 5.4 and 5.5 respectively. Right now they line up as though they were > part of the RSA key type.**** > > ** ** > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-13#section-3 > [2] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.3 > [3] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-13#section-5.3.4 > **** >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
