updates as per ITI F2F meeting on 6 may #11
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ritikarawlani
commented
May 7, 2024
ch-5.10.html
Outdated
| @@ -192,7 +169,7 @@ <h4 id="5.10.2.3">5.10.2.3 Payload</h4> | |||
| <ul><li class="bullet-list1">See the Payload sections within Detached (<a href="5.10.3.3">section 5.10.3.3</a>) and within Enveloping (<a href="5.10.4.3">section 5.10.4.3</a>) for specific guidance</li></ul> | |||
| <h4 id="5.10.2.4">5.10.2.4 Signature</h4> | |||
|
|
|||
| <ul><li class="bullet-list1">The Signature SHALL at least support the hashing algorithm SHA256. The signature validation policy will apply to the signature and determine the acceptability</li> | |||
| <ul><li class="bullet-list1">The Signature SHALL use the algorithm defined in the <a href="5.10.2.1.1">5.10.2.1.1</a> alg parameter section above.</li> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the alg parameter
ritikarawlani
commented
May 7, 2024
ch-5.10.html
Outdated
| <h5 id="5.10.2.1.2">5.10.2.1.2 "crit" (Critical) Parameter</h5> | ||
| <h5 id="5.10.2.1.2">5.10.2.1.2 "kid" (key identifier) Parameter</h5> | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li>The kid parameter, if present, is a hint indicating which key was used to secure the JWS. The kid claim is used by Consumers for looking up the public key</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"DSG Content Consumer"
looking up the public key for verification of digital signatures.
ritikarawlani
commented
May 7, 2024
ch-5.10.html
Outdated
| @@ -126,50 +126,27 @@ <h5 id ="5.10.2.1.1">5.10.2.1.1 "alg" (Algorithm) Header Parameter</h5> | |||
| <ul> | |||
| <li class="bullet-list1">SHALL be present</li> | |||
| <li> It is recommend to use algorithms as specified in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7518.html#section-3.1">RFC 7518</a> and <a href="https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/119300_119399/119312/01.01.01_60/ts_119312v010101p.pdf">ETSI TS 119 312</a></li> | |||
| <li>The use of RS256 SHALL be required for the purpose of interoperability testing. However, implementors SHOULD take into account additional considerations such as jurisdictional policies, quantum safe computing, and evolving guidance from RFC 7518 and ETSI TS 119 312.</li> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
RS256 algorithm SHALL be implemented
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #
📑 Description
✅ Checks
ℹ Additional Information