Subject: [jose] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-cookbook-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:33:56 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jose-cookbook-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would suggest using a simpler word than "progenitor" in 3.2 and 3.4
(unless it's a term of art, but it doesn't seem like it is).

---

From: ⌘ Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:55:00 -0700

On 12/15/14, 6:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/
> 
> 
> 
COMMENT:
>  I would suggest using a simpler word than "progenitor" in 3.2 and
> 3.4 (unless it's a term of art, but it doesn't seem like it is).
> 
> 

Richard suggested "private key corresponding to", which I think
matches existing terms best.  For consistency, I'm also replacing
"corollary of" with "public key corresponding to" in 3.1 and 3.3.

- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email-masked] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.