Opened 9 years ago
#121 new defect
Section 7.2. JWS JSON Serailziation
Reported by: | ietf@… | Owned by: | draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
Component: | json-web-signature | Version: | |
Severity: | - | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description
- As written this section is no understandable. It needs a big re-write
- Don't care about the comparison statement - If anything it should be reversed and placed in the location where restrictions are placed and not in the general case solution
- First bullet point can be killed - it is not telling me what to do
- Second bullet point - This would be much more readable if you did it either as an outdented list or as a table that is of the form - member name, member description. Could also use the same format that you used for header members as well
- The syntax example should occur before the list of fields so that people see the overview and can then go to the specifics.
- Define the signatures array and then define the elements that go into that array element.
- "Unlike the JWS Compact Serialization, in the JWS JSON Serialization" delete all of the - this should just document this serialization and not worry about comparisons
- Last bullet item goes in the data model description and not the serialization description.
- the MUST be present in the first sentence belongs in the description of the element and not here
- There is a difference of opinion if the signature element MUST be present - the bullet point "if non-empty" vs the list of required after the example.
- It is not clear that the statement that one of protected and header must be present - this is implied since alg must be present.
- There is no need to state that something is the same as is defined elsewhere
- The union should be described in the data model and not here
- What is the purpose of the next to last paragraph here. I cannot follow what this text is trying to say.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.