IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Proposed Agenda for Interim Working Group Meeting

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 9366421F95F8 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LDqO4zKgi7t for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0204.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9D921F9640 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2FFO11FD024.protection.gbl (10.1.15.204) by BY2FFO11HUB040.protection.gbl (10.1.14.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.664.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:49:39 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD024.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.15.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:49:08 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.224]) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.25]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:48:39 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Thread-Topic: [jose] Proposed Agenda for Interim Working Group Meeting
Thread-Index: Ac44d1jWKgMVlUPqSZCKazcg+mJZHgBi1DCAAAF1uYAAAD11gA==
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:48:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367642704@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436761CA72@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgQUfaOscXdOsdg--ygUaDTHA-AehcGSZ1VECrxbAi56QQ@mail.gmail.com> <516C4947.7070303@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <516C4947.7070303@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(479174001)(199002)(51444002)(13464002)(189002)(24454001)(33656001)(59766001)(54356001)(20776003)(46102001)(74502001)(56776001)(79102001)(16406001)(66066001)(63696002)(50466001)(65816001)(46406003)(77982001)(56816002)(44976003)(47446002)(31966008)(80022001)(54316002)(49866001)(47736001)(53806001)(47776003)(5343655001)(69226001)(47976001)(55846006)(76482001)(4396001)(81342001)(51856001)(81542001)(23726002)(74662001)(50986001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB040; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0817737FD1
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Proposed Agenda for Interim Working Group Meeting
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:49:18 -0000

Beyond just dividing the agenda into four pieces, I believe we need some "housekeeping" time in the agenda so that we leave with concrete and recorded next steps with owners, including the wording for polls/consensus call questions, so we don't lose time after the meeting for those to be formulated out of band before we're able to involve the whole working group.  It will be easy to focus on generating those proposed resolutions and questions while we're in the same room together.  Not so much once people have parted ways...

I'd want us to also leave some time near the end to discuss WebCrypto/JOSE interactions, if we have time to do so.  And Use Cases discussions would be a nice-to-have as well.

I support Peter St. Andre's sentiment that the using the in-person meeting for generating agreement on thorny issues is key.  I think that was always the intent of the interim meeting.

				Cheers,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Richard Barnes
Cc: Mike Jones; Karen O'Donoghue; Jim Schaad; jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Proposed Agenda for Interim Working Group Meeting

On 4/15/13 11:57 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> So maybe we could divide the agenda roughly in 4, and have one large 
> discussion on each of the above topics, with the goal of getting 
> consensus on some answers to the above questions.
+1 to using the in-person meeting for generating agreement on thorny
issues...

Peter

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email