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

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 10 October 2014 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 E8EF61AD436 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 uRTTwfoq1cDA for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 549F81AD439 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hy4so3435952vcb.0 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=N2HUEnTiEA8RIcdgQ8kINcY84cWU46bwU8Prw474n1E=; b=E1y4UrTvTpksVqMNGelq6RwjvRWL0fj5EXuTYbpgKFh8lt9xzAU88r+l0AuRRgko5A RH1GH21xhm/AZ6iYJ6151gerfDjAsO3vT2dq85UjLZYlr02ZpeWwHcd158y1cH7y3+DH Obj1hmuRIhjDIehgWr8yrjteseHqkJNspB8Dh6NlyCc5QPnE2xdyb1veg4TJ7jQsyE4L iIAI9V5eiIqO++yepUlavwMkD7VylyNx/xRUrkR6A3OoOdc1SseeEFTtOOPlYAq6BNIg nLD7H3CCk9M+F/pfSQDoVGWWfKYaCm1QHsZ5hAU7pexOBbWMn5K7/NZsUwau/+Tooawh Hw2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJO6BE7VipVn0zTWTGgH+uRLCWxiBXyRWC0MoECkqgx7oGfSYZOpaBs2Kd7tfcl6wbxVb7
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.7.225 with SMTP id m1mr3788862vda.63.1412977183539; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.134.17 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLhQzQ3WJUNvVLcM_kqoGheFMegxCYQcQwB=nt1=YLESw@mail.gmail.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> <CALaySJLhQzQ3WJUNvVLcM_kqoGheFMegxCYQcQwB=nt1=YLESw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:39:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQAW3kMy-bxiADfYn37PP5gA8+dnyy9YPn6znh9nTUyLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf302ef84419d4e905051863a7
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/V81AEHIXiRxkC24gCRmk1zOyIAQ
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "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: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:39:46 -0000

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> > [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.
>

I expect that this is the more likely case.  Mike, Jim, do you agree?  To
Mike's point, just because the WG closes down doesn't mean the mailing list
does.

One other possibility: Just re-use the oauth-ext-review@ list.  It's
probably going to be pretty much the same people anyway.

--Richard



> 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
>