Re: [jose] Call for adoption

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

Richard, I believe that your response is conflating two largely orthogonal things:  whether there should be a JSON serialization and whether it should be in the same document as the compact serialization.  The working group has been clear that it also wants a JSON serialization and that it wants the JSON serialization to enable multiple recipients.  The individual submission documents in question accomplish those goals and incorporate working group feedback received along the way.  I believe it represents forward progress to adopt them.

As was clarified during the rechartering discussion, the working group is free to combine deliverables.  If the working group decides to combine the compact serialization and the JSON serialization into a single deliverable, so be it.  But them not being combined at present shouldn't be grounds to thwart the working group's clear intent to support both serializations.

Once the JSON serialization is under working group control, feel free to lead a crusade to combine both serializations into one document. :)

Anyway, that's how I see it.  Looking forward to seeing you in Orlando...

                                                            Best wishes,
                                                            -- Mike

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:24 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [jose] Call for adoption

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<http://www.myfitnesspal.com/foohttp:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-jose-use-cases/> - Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)

Draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization/> - JSON Web Encryption JSON Serialization (JWE-JS)

Draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/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