Re: [jose] updated draft charter text incorporating AD's comments

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

This feedback loop does work ;) I'll put in the modified wording.

spt

On 4/5/13 7:15 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> If you can live with that, let’s use it.  I remain profoundly
> uncomfortable with Sean’s wording.
>
>                                                              Thanks,
>
>                                                              -- Mike
>
> *From:*Richard Barnes [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 05, 2013 3:46 PM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Barry Leiba; Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] updated draft charter text incorporating AD's comments
>
> I could live with that text, but I really dislike weasel words like
> "JSON-based".  What does that mean?
>
> Given that we're putting a JSON serialization in the base spec, it
> doesn't seem like Sean's text would require any change in direction.
>
> --Richard
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Barry.
>
> How about "representing integrity-protected data using JSON-based data
> structures" and "representing encrypted data using JSON-based data
> structures"?  That would read better than the original and still not be
> able to be misconstrued to say that what the working group has produced
> doesn't meet the charter goals.
>
>                                  Thanks,
>                                  -- Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
> Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 7:37 AM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: Sean Turner; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [jose] updated draft charter text incorporating AD's comments
>
>  > For that reason, I believe we would be FAR better off to leave the
>  > first two charter items exactly as they are at
>  > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jose/charter/ than to accept the new
> wording.
>  > The current wording is:
>  >
>  > 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply JSON-structured
>  > integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data
>  > structures. "Integrity protection" includes public-key digital
>  > signatures as well as symmetric-key MACs.
>  >
>  > 2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a
>  > JSON-structured  encryption to data, including (but not limited to)
> JSON data structures.
>
> The problem is that I do not understand what you mean by
> "JSON-structured integrity protection" and "JSON-structured encryption".
>   Sean's suggested wording is intended to say this in an understandable
> way; if it's not correct, please try to come up with an alternative.
>   The existing text doesn't work, because I don't understand how to
> apply the modifier "JSON-structured" to the noun "encryption" and get
> anything sensible out of it.  What does it mean for *encryption* to be
> "JSON-structured"?
>
>  > So yes, I strongly object to the new wording, as I don't want to open
>  > the door for the current representations to be rejected on charter
>  > grounds later.  If it helps, you can reassure objectors that we ARE
>  > producing pure JSON representations too, but that they're not the only
>  > JSON-based representations for integrity protected and encrypted content.
>
> To be clear: what you're producing is not the issue.  It's an issue of
> the wording in the charter.
>
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>