I don’t believe that there is any need for a textual change for this. Just a request to IANA. Consider that all of the fields that are not in the media types table.
Jim From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 3:11 PM To: Kathleen Moriarty; Jim Schaad Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [jose] Registration change for IANA? I’m OK with this suggestion. I assume that we’d also want to add a sentence in the registration instructions for the field “Algorithm Analysis Documents(s):” saying something like this: “This field is provided for use by the designated experts but not included in the resulting registration”, which we’d add via an editor’s note at this point. I would make it the next-to-last sentence in the last paragraph of 7.1.1 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-40#section-7.1.1> . Does that wording sound right to you, Jim and Kathleen? -- Mike From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:57 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [jose] Registration change for IANA? Hi Jim, Sent from my iPhone On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:01 PM, "Jim Schaad" <[email protected]> wrote: I was looking at the registries that have been created by IANA for the JOSE documents. I want to ask for a change in the template from IANA on the registry but need to run it past the working group before doing so. In the post IESG documents, a new field was added to the registration template for algorithms to provide pointers to documents that do analysis on the security properties of the algorithm that the registration request is for. This field was added mainly for the benefit of the IANA designated experts and is not really needed long term for people who look up the algorithm in the table. As such I think we can ask IANA to remove the column from the registration table as the data contained will be good only at the time of registration and will not be updated to reflect more recent research on the algorithm. I think that would be fine. Since this is specification required, there would be a way to see that information later if needed. Removing it from the registry would still meet the request from the IESG reviews IMO. Thanks, Kathleen Comments? Jim _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
