Implied in my comment is that the parameter jkt would go away.
From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 11:39 AM To: Jim Schaad; [email protected] Subject: RE: [jose] Working Group last call on draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint I agree with you that we should probably add text saying that the thumbprint value could be used as a Key ID (Hideki Nara made this point yesterday as well), and that it is an application decision whether to carry the value in a “jkt”, “kid”, or another field. (In one case, OpenID Connect uses it as the “sub” (subject) claim of a JWT, for instance.) -- Mike From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [jose] Working Group last call on draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint I am wondering why this needs to be tagged as a thumbprint. Is there a reason why this draft should not be presented as – here is a way to compute a kid value for a key that will produce a unique value. This would be similar to how the computations are presented in PKIX for the subject key identifier extension. Jim
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
