Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 02 October 2014 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501CB1A923D; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mm93wmU-CD9p; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8EF31A9218; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u10so2805129lbd.1 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=auPjxvr+Y2sMiJec6/CuHPEr1UnHnkKWJwI7nFZJ2YM=; b=x//eY53mCNFGrU+9hvsImH6Kh6vDvsnd3xKof1mxemx7FUy4KYhaijyNRDem22kOei 3aAkHYP15QiyraJ/rk4AkmTZMrKM9y8xcsf7JiQb/9Dv+pGwTjBimUiWM23SErTsN7LI upCuQSZc7sHcqQVKZoAS6+cZEI4NDxBd7zlrjrxBevexHjBSeTvnAXFXc7pu4yN2PHOE nLAnOeULkCJIonTmM4/LRsaPFlU4VtlliEfPtW0xJqam1y94CLo0iDJXStxvcDFps9SW FqqtpQ/oGIm6+8AW6Nz0J2HRn9sjpyJhLUSiXvd/Iz/PDJR+KNf1YXlCwvIw3NApJs2t hP4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.205.39 with SMTP id ld7mr646340lbc.40.1412274209337; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.1.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <10d001cfde69$9181f7e0$b485e7a0$@augustcellars.com>
References: <20141002023359.19368.17933.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0fb901cfddf2$5e21c7d0$1a655770$@augustcellars.com> <CALaySJKuYDiZFBY8Q6XR2bj7kj=x6OkEf29cD_CruVPXERw+ig@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgSsshCsa944ZbY71FQ=ZC+PoRzUKzEJNn9KpesR92WU5w@mail.gmail.com> <10d001cfde69$9181f7e0$b485e7a0$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:23:29 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pUZDOyrbqFVPVtJ8XRWoIvtRAYo
Message-ID: <CALaySJLhQzQ3WJUNvVLcM_kqoGheFMegxCYQcQwB=nt1=YLESw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/S6BcZZhN-RfIF5sLEAE8TKr4SDk
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 02 Oct 2014 18:23:32 -0000

> [JLS] I don't have any objections to using jose@ietf.org.  However the
> original discussions for this was it would be some type of "expert review"
> list similar to the mime-types list.  I don't know that the jose list would
> provide the same semantics.

Right, that's why I said that it depends.

The media-types list is rather a special case, as it's *extremely*
active.  There are others like that, such as uri-review.

If you're not expecting many registrations very soon, and the working
group will close after the documents are done, then it makes sense to
use the jose list because by the time you start getting registrations
that list won't be active for the working group.

If you're expecting the jose list to have active discussion of
documents while registration requests are coming in, then it makes
sense to create a new list.

Use your judgment.

b