Re: [jose] Consensus calls
"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Fri, 29 March 2013 02:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 32F5521F8DDD for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 jN1JSPkhP2hX for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.pacifier.net (smtp3.pacifier.net [64.255.237.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77E021F8DD6 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon (mail.augustcellars.com [50.34.17.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp3.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22B4138EA6; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Nat Sakimura' <sakimura@gmail.com>, 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
References: <006901ce2b39$e7ee2fc0$b7ca8f40$@augustcellars.com> <CABzCy2AxLChaj3Cjjvoio4_N7eoMiNZemC0yEUasnJMUKsP+EA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367596FA1@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CABzCy2Db5O-2WAYDEvumS51ALGxJaHO1RCrr9c5GTf0WJB4oig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2Db5O-2WAYDEvumS51ALGxJaHO1RCrr9c5GTf0WJB4oig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:11 -0700
Message-ID: <007201ce2c23$85e86300$91b92900$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0073_01CE2BE8.D98C7130"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIVtGiZD+ejgU/m+d7nyMc0S6wm1wJ0lMGoARrkAtcCJZAoeZf/NdpA
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Consensus calls
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:17:50 -0000
Yes _ I was referring to the current one serialization drafts. Sorry for not being more explicit. From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:31 PM To: Mike Jones Cc: Jim Schaad; jose@ietf.org Subject: Re: [jose] Consensus calls That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure, especially for the people who was not at the F2F. 2013/3/29 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> I would be highly surprised if Jim meant anything except http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization-04 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization-04 for item 3 - especially since were the drafts referenced in your presentation at IETF 86. -- Mike From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:17 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: jose@ietf.org Subject: Re: [jose] Consensus calls HI. Could you please specify which drafts for item 3? Nat 2013/3/28 Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> <chair> The following "decisions" were made at the face to face meeting. This message is to ratify these decisions on the list. You have one week to object and provide a solid defense of your objection or the actions will be considered as adopted. Note that for some of these we are running slightly ahead of our charter changes but this is not expected to be a problem 1. Adopt the proposed compromise language from John Bradley's presentation dealing with the critical language. This is to adopt points 1, 2, 3 and 4 but not point 5. (presentation is available on the materials website http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-jose-4.pdf). 2. The private fields of public/private key algorithms and the symmetric key field are to be folded into the mail JWA draft. 3. The multiple recipient/signer serialization drafts are to be folded into the JWE and JWS drafts respectively. Jim _______________________________________________ jose mailing list jose@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
- Re: [jose] Consensus calls Jim Schaad
- [jose] Consensus calls Jim Schaad
- Re: [jose] Consensus calls Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] Consensus calls Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] Consensus calls Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] Consensus calls Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] Consensus calls Jim Schaad