Re: [jose] Call for adoption

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Contrary to what you might believe John, I am actually capable of finding
the document myself. In fact, it's right there on the WG page so not
exactly hard to find. I wasn't asking for help tracking it down but rather
trying to show by example how, despite best intentions, the use case docs
tend to get second class treatment.

I should have learned by now that subtlety is lost on Bradley though ;)

We're all busy people and time is a real scarcity.  A use case document is
great in theory but rarely gets the attention it needs to be truly useful.










On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> To be fair the reason the use-cased are hard to find is that they are not
> WG documents.
>
> If we adopt the documents at least we can find them.   I think the use
> cases can hep us get on the sam page in the group something we haves had a
> challenge with on occasion
>
> So I agree with Richard that draft-barnes-jose-use-cases<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-jose-use-cases/> (link
> included for Brian) become a WG item.
>
> Not to suck up to Richard too much:)
>
> I also agree with Mike that the two other documents
> Draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization/>
>  and Draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization/> become
> WG items, and fight it out later on the question of merging them with the
> base specs which may be a good idea.
>
> I don't agree with Hannes just because:)
>
> John B.
>
>
>
> On 2013-02-14, at 10:23 AM, Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> For better or worse, I think Hannes' assessment of the value of use case
> documents is spot on. And as such, I think it's legitimate to question the
> inclusion of the JOSE use cases as a working group document.
>
> Perhaps a case in point, I'd never actually read the use case document and
> thought maybe I should at least take a glance before spouting off any
> opinions here. So I went to find the doc in via the links in the original
> message in this thread only to find that the use cases link was bad.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I agree with Richard on the serialization documents.
>>
>> On the use cases I have a mixed view. As we have seen in the OAuth
>> working group with use cases it is easy to get the group to add a new use
>> case document but very difficult to get others to find reviewers to get it
>> finished. I am not sure what the target audience would be with such a
>> document.
>>
>> Let's assume that the audience for the document is the JOSE group. First,
>> the requirements are not really adding a lot to the discussion since they
>> are really basic (more or less what can be found in the charter). The use
>> cases in Section 4 are out-of-date and are typically better described in
>> the referenced documents. One of the four use cases is obsolete by now: the
>> ATOCA use case is gone with the decisions from the last IETF meeting since
>> the group entire group got trashed. ALTO IMHO does not seem to go anywhere
>> either.
>>
>> Sorry if I do not get excited anymore about the value of use case (and
>> requirements) documents. The main challenges are that
>>
>> a) you don't want to describe use cases that relate to work where it
>> hasn't even been decided to use the specific technology (in this case
>> JSON), and
>> b) when a use case of interest to the group is found that requires
>> additional functionality then a new extension/solution is defined in a
>> separate document that typically provides a better description than in the
>> use case document itself.
>>
>> Consequently, the value of separate use case document goes close to zero.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 5:23 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>
>> > I support the adoption of the use cases draft.  Clearer use cases will
>> help this group refine a lot of the ideas that are floating around.
>> >
>> > I do not support the adoption of the JSON serialization documents.  A
>> JSON serialization should be part of the base documents. I have already
>> made a proposal to the list for how to do this, which is essentially the
>> same as the one in the JSON serialization documents.  It would have a small
>> impact on the base specs, and make the base format much more usable.
>> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg01465.html
>> >
>> > --Richard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> > The chairs of the JOSE working group have dropped the ball on this
>> (really me).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At the last face-to-face meeting there was a call for the following
>> documents to become working group documents:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Draft-barnes-jose-use-cases – Use Cases and Requirements for JSON
>> Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization – JSON Web Encryption JSON
>> Serialization (JWE-JS)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization – JSON Web Signature JSON
>> Serialization (JWS-JS)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The chairs are going to assume that the working group wants to adopt
>> these three documents as that was the overwhelming response in Atlanta.
>>  Thus you only need to reply if you object to these documents being
>> adopted.  This call will end 27 February.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > (Note that we will be looking at the private key drafts during the
>> Orlando meeting and issuing an adoption call shortly after that meeting.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > jose mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>