The word "historical" is also admirably gracious while still accurate. I'd be supportive of that. I think it better captures the situation than just removal of “legitimate”. On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 3:21 PM Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2026 at 2:18:22 PM, Neil Madden <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As the author of the draft, I support option 2. With a nod to Brian, I’d >> also be happy swapping “legitimate” with another word like “historical”. >> > > Likewise. And, replace the word “legitimate” with nothing. -T > > >> On 3 Feb 2026, at 05:41, Karen ODonoghue <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> JOSE Working Group Members, >> >> We are following up on discussions at IETF 124 on >> draft-madden-jose-deprecate-none-rsa15. >> >> Firstly, thank you to Neil for your work on this draft and to those who >> have provided review thus far. >> >> The one remaining outstanding item for this draft is whether to add text >> to capture legitimate use cases of "none" as suggested by Mike in his >> review >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/Z4IJGxKubk81LK8ZKYjY3prPmis/ >> >> This was discussed in Montreal, with views both for and against this >> addition, and we agreed to follow up with discussion on list. With that in >> mind, we’d like to ask for a rough consensus on which of the following two >> choices you prefer: >> >> Option 1) Change the text in Section 1.1 to include the following >> suggested text: >> "One of the legitimate use cases for Unsecured JWSs is OpenID Connect ID >> Tokens secured by sending them over a TLS connection, as described in >> Section 2 of [OpenID.Core]. Another legitimate use is unsigned request >> objects, as described in Section 6.1 of [OpenID.Core].” >> >> Option 2) Leave the text in Section 1.1 as it currently is: >> "Although there are some legitimate use-cases for Unsecured JWS, these >> are relatively few in number and can easily be satisfied by alternative >> means.” >> >> In the absence of a compromise on some alternative text that is agreed to >> by rough consensus, we will need to make a choice between the two above >> approaches. >> >> Please respond to this email with your preference for Option 1 or Option >> 2. >> Please provide a short rationale. so we can capture the view of the >> Working Group and move this draft forward. >> >> This consensus call will last for two weeks ending on Tuesday, 17 >> February 2026. >> >> Thanks, >> JOSE Chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
