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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> 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