Re: [jose] thoughts on deployed code and breaking changes

Could we at least clarify that the embargo on breaking changes is to the
*compact* serialization of *JWS*?  All of the backward compatibility
concerns we've heard are for JWT, which is primarily based on JWS.  And as
far as I know, there's been no implementation of the JSON serializations
yet, so we don't have the same compatibility burden.

I don't mean to imply that I've got a bunch of horrible stuff queued up.
 I'm as interested in getting this done as the next guy.  I just want to
make clear that things like ISSUE-20 and Jim's suggestion on unencoded
protected headers are not ruled out of bounds.

--Richard

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I *personally* believe the time for major breaking changes is past for
> this version of the specification. I believe we are now in the phase of
> final corrections and minor tweaks for a v1.0. We scheduled an interim
> meeting in April to get all remaining issues on the table and discussed.
> These specifications have been evolving for a long time. I am sure that
> they could be improved in a myriad of ways, but at this point, without a
> strong rationale and a ground swell of working group support, we should
> work to complete what we have. Any major refactoring or new  functionality
> should be deferred as future work. At that time, we can work to "break
> cleanly with existing code." We better serve the IETF and the broader
> community by getting these specifications out the door.
>
> We will have an interim teleconference Monday (with a few more possibly to
> follow) to review the implementation of the interim discussions and to
> discuss any final issues. I strongly encourage folks to review the
> specifications and the minutes of the interim with that in mind.
>
> Regards,
> Karen
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>