Re: [dispatch] JCS - Abandoning the DISPATCH path

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bret,

In IETF, we don't do counts per se. We have the notion of rough consensus.
The method that WG chairs use has some very basic guidelines, but there is
a lot that's left to the discretion of the chairs.   Here's a document that
describes some of this:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282  I think a key
point from that document is around the notion that consensus can be gained
if there objections, if all those can be addressed in some way.  With this
topic, that does not seem possible given the nature of the meeting and
mailing list discussions.

As a chair, what I took away from the discussions were very strong
disagreements about the value of this work.  There were indeed a few
supporters. But, there did not appear to be broad interest such that this
is something the IETF should take on.   And, If we were to decide to
progress this work in IETF, it is very, very likely that those that
disagree with it right now, would continue to raise the same concerns (per
the point about objections being addressed if you want consensus) and
ultimately it's the IESG that judges whether a WG has consensus.  Our AD,
Barry Leiba has already stated his position on this.  And, you do have an
alternative publication path via the ISE.

Regards,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair


On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:01 PM Bret Jordan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This is really sad and a loss for the IETF.  I would like to know how much
> interest needs to be given for an idea for it to be accepted and worked
> on.  Is it 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, ?? People?  And how is consensus achieved,
> meaning what percentage of people need to be against the work to prevent
> it?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bret
> PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
> "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that
> can not be unscrambled is an egg."
>
> On Jun 5, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Anders Rundgren <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Due to the lack interest ("active disinterest") we have been advised to
> not pursue JCS through DISPATCH.
>
> Personally I will continue with JCS in contexts like Open Banking since it
> obvious (based on existing practice) that Base64Url-encoding of business
> messages will continue to be a hard sell.  The ability simply taking a hash
> of a JSON object is also a pretty useful feature not supported by any IETF
> standard.
>
> For the authors,
> Anders Rundgren
>
> Current draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-06
> On-line lab combining JWS and JCS: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs/home
> IETF-104 report:
> https://cyberphone.github.io/ietf-json-canon/ietf-104-report.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>