Re: [jose] Call for adoption

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Thu, 14 February 2013 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A578221F8749 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eApKbiC4pCMi for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog131.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog131.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742BC21F8740 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f200.google.com ([209.85.210.200]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob131.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKURzlZnFZqjSicfc0FEBjT7ZPB41p1Ym5@postini.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:51 PST
Received: by mail-ia0-f200.google.com with SMTP id o25so7941883iad.11 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=YSTNqLKxckBWYvtv6F1I8eQoRCdsyHlw7MWm9qDk0D4=; b=WyiyPiMnQkDRTCW4zw8pgLO8dv9XludHr28sk9IDJAB9Q/39vHq1NOYZI3ANq56GfJ zj9P9amgYdr2IBn9tuyiTidIEQvRaxTfHD8PKI51XVrCUSqdy1vUuSl8rSSnLtMl1f2N wWrq6vxNT9VIoqJbHShf4kWczRXWtCQNem1JaO+Pw2DUwnmMgecnKpune0XD9rK6bkSB Ircqa2B2mbmVEcf7RZbAJgHWxBGXXn/HDYFYo2Hmvet/Owx1YIqCVpH72x0o3pwwMUZP aMhzq3xUo+lr+HNzTdkuN6CNUK1kOWAJatSFEzGbZztGU4Nnl66UBGj/2EWuFcWiCNHc bIUw==
X-Received: by 10.42.92.72 with SMTP id s8mr34939696icm.0.1360848230633; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.42.92.72 with SMTP id s8mr34939689icm.0.1360848230472; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.139.8 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:23:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <EADF8FEF-7C0F-4C7A-8336-23AC2782B975@gmx.net>
References: <02b601ce0a17$db6c3370$92449a50$@augustcellars.com> <CAL02cgSFe=Sphj9PL-GF56-F_G_1JtpZ2OzMW3JiFgzRCUkxTA@mail.gmail.com> <EADF8FEF-7C0F-4C7A-8336-23AC2782B975@gmx.net>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:23:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTqWncm1=wt_p36NdsdfzHWx-cj3MQNfiuiKKGe9JvUag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba5bba1d5edc5f04d5af2b77
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlx4Xsztmwm7ITqS1fYQWOfz9lD1YYtn4o2vy288meY21eUG4tS1YEZd9DL3Xk17eDD8qi7tJ18Lwi1c2NIbVqxxnm47JyTEHtcnO1+Ry9YIlvIJnTm1jJ/X6FjmGQFcz8YVa6O
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Call for adoption
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:23:52 -0000

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 <
hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> 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
> > jose@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>