Hi Mike,
My apologies, I didn't realize you were looking for a cut/paste of the
comments - they were minor details to resolve anyhow. Regarding the
standards/informational, no problem, it was just a comment from an outside
reader, that's all.
Thanks
Sarah
> On Jun 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Sarah. Here’s the output of the tool and responses to it:
>
> -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 413
>
> -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 413
>
> == Missing Reference: 'specified ' is mentioned on line 412, but not defined
>
> The lines referenced by the output above are:
> 411 [JWA].) For example, if an RSA key were to use "e":"AAEAAQ"
> 412 (representing [0, 1, 0, 1]) rather than the specified correct
> 413 representation of "e":"AQAB" (representing [1, 0, 1]), a different
>
> All of these three nits are false positives in the tool output.
>
> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SHS'
>
> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'UNICODE'
>
> It’s appropriate for both of these references to be normative, for the same
> reasons that they are in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#section-10.1
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#section-10.1>.
>
> Also, about whether the draft is standards-track or informational, this was
> discussed by the working group and because it’s being normatively referenced
> by other specs, the decision was to leave it standards-track.
>
> Best wishes,
> -- Mike
>
> From: Sarah Banks [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:30 PM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>; <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Opsdir review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
>
> Hey Mike, they were from the nits checker within tools, and click on the
> "nits" button. Here's the (long) URL to it from my browser:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05.txt
>
> <https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05.txt>
>
> Thanks
> Sarah
>
> On Jun 23, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review, Sarah. Could you send us a link to the review
> comments in the tools? (I poked around, including
> athttps://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates
> <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates>, and couldn't
> find the review comments.)
>
> Thanks,
> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Banks [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:36 AM
> To: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>; <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Opsdir review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
> aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may
> be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG
> chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> Document reviewed: draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
>
> Summary: Ready to go, no nits, 5 comments (see tools).
>
> Overall, if I were implementing this in code, I'd appreciate the preamble,
> thanks for the clear description. I also appreciate that the security section
> was well considered and discussed. I have no major comments, other than that
> it read like .. an algorithm to me, and I was a bit surprised to see it on
> the Standards track, rather than informational, but that's just a comment,
> not a nit or problem. The draft is ready to go.
>
> Thanks
> Sarah
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
