I agree that there's an inconsistency that we should address, but I'd actually
suggest a different change. Sections 3.1 and 4.1 are overview sections just
listing the algorithm identifiers, whereas sections 3.2-3.6 and 4.2-4.8 define
the actual algorithms. If we make a change, I'd suggest that the registrations
refer to the actual section defining the algorithm (as is already done for
A*GCMKW and PBES2-*). Specifically, I'd have HS* refer to section 3.2, RS* to
3.3, ES* to 3.4, RSA1_5 to 4.2, RSA-OAEP* to 4.3, etc. If people agree with
this change, which I believe would make the section references in the registry
more useful, I can work with IANA and the RFC Editor to make the corrections.
Thanks for looking at the details, Jim.
-- Mike
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [jose] IANA Registration issue
In going through the IANA registrations for the
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms document, I found something that I had
missed the last time that I reviewed the documents and has probably been there
for some time.
All of the signing algorithms point to section 3.1 for the reference column.
All of the key management functions until A128GCMKW point to section 4.1 for
the reference column
The rest of the key management functions point to sections 4.7 or 4.8.
All of the content encryption algorithms point to section 4.1 for the reference
column.
Should we request a change to make this consistent and point A*GCMKW and
PBSE2-* to point to section 4.1 in the reference column and request an editor's
note to this effect?
Jim
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
