#152: Section 5.3.2 JWK Parameters for RSA Private Keys Changes (by [email protected]):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Old description: > A. Why is there 2119 language on having the other items? > > B. Why is it required that all of the elements be present if any are > present? Does this mean that I need to reject the JWK if any of them are > missing? All of this can be re-generated from d and the public > parameters. (The exception to this may be 'oth'.) New description: A. Why is there 2119 language on having the other items? * WON'T FIX * The language is still messy, but probably ok. B. Why is it required that all of the elements be present if any are present? Does this mean that I need to reject the JWK if any of them are missing? All of this can be re-generated from d and the public parameters. (The exception to this may be 'oth'.) * FIXED -- -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: json-web- | Version: algorithms | Resolution: fixed Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/152#comment:1> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/> _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
