Subject: Re: [jose] #49: Don't use RFC2119 language in the registry

From: "jose issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 04:01:48 -0000

#49: Don't use RFC2119 language in the registry

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 This has been done by moving from upper case words to lower case words.
 This will meet the minimum requirement from Pete that the language not be
 identical.

 I intend to close this issue on 9/9 unless people want to change the
 actual words themselves and to change the + and - indicators of direction
 and use words for that purpose as well.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [email-masked] |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  algorithms             |  Resolution:
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/49#comment:1>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:06:18 -0700

I want to highlight the comments I made on this issue.  The change has been made in the version published today (-15).

1.  The way we have avoided the appearance of 2119 language is by not making this all upper case.   While it is my believe that this will be sufficient to make Pete happy, it is very possible that I am wrong.

2.  The use of + and - as indicators was done due to the restrictions that were placed on the S/MIME document by the use of 2119 language.  I am not totally happy that this is how we are indicating the same thing but would not stand in the way of doing this.  I think that it is not immediately obvious what this means and is therefore prone to misinterpretation.

I would like the working group to comment in the next couple of days on this approach and make sure that it meets with working group approval.  In thinking about it after my meeting with Mike last week, I think that I would prefer to address bullet two with language along the lines of

Suggested, expect to become mandatory

I believe that having the additional text rather than just using "suggested+" makes it clearer especially if we are looking at things like RSA w/SHA1 where it would say

Mandatory, except to become deprecated.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jose issue tracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:02 PM
> To: [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [jose] #49: Don't use RFC2119 language in the registry
> 
>  I intend to close this issue on 9/9 unless people want to change the  actual
> words themselves and to change the + and - indicators of direction  and use
> words for that purpose as well.
> 
> --
> -------------------------+----------------------------------------------
> -------------------------+---
> -------------------------+----------------------------------------------
> -------------------------+---
>

---

From: "jose issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:35:28 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [email-masked] |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  algorithms             |  Resolution:  fixed
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/49#comment:2>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>