Re: [COSE] Consensus Call: Adoption of the COSE Token

My preference would be the same as John's

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Sun, 15 November 2015 00:08 UTCS
My preference is B then A.

We are rechartering OAuth anyway.   We did not do JOSE in the OAuth WG but were responsible for the security token format.

The core of CWT should be in OAuth using the existing JWT registry and extensions done in ACE.

John B.
> On Nov 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> At the Yokohama meeting, the chairs agreed to do a consensus call regarding the adoption and placement of new work to define a COSE Token, analogous to the JWT from JOSE. In the room, there was a general sentiment of support for the work being done, with the wide adoption of JWT and its driving of JOSE being a common theme of precedent. What wasn't clear is where the work should be done and to what end it should drive. The six positions we are asking the working group to consider and voice their support for are:
>
> A) Define the COSE Token within the COSE working group along side the COSE Messages (and potentially COSE Auxiliary Algorithms) draft.
> B) Define the COSE Token inside the OAuth working group.
> C) Define the COSE Token inside the ACE working group.
> D) Don't define the COSE Token anywhere.
> E) You need more information to decide.
> F) You don't give a flying rat about the COSE Token.*
>
> The consensus call will remain open for two weeks from today, closing on November 21, 2015; at which time, hopefully we will have a clear answer and direction to point this work.
>
> Thank you,
> - Justin & Kepeng, your COSE chairs
>
> * I promised those in the room at Yokohama to offer a flying rat option, for which I am deeply sorry.
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> COSE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose