Re: [jose] Document Action: 'Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-06.txt)

My specific concern was having a window of opportunity to review the revised text before it is frozen in stone.  Specifically, I was wondering whether Richard had produced the updates addressing the identified issues, and whether he could send them to the list.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:27 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: 'jose mailing list'; 'RFC Editor'
Subject: RE: [jose] Document Action: 'Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-06.txt)

The document is in RFC-EDITOR state.  This means that we have not yet reached the AUTH48 state discussed below.

The document will appear when it appears.  Worrying about things until this is not really a productive use of time.  It is even possible that it will stick there until the rest of the JOSE documents move forward if that is a judgment call somebody makes.  I don't expect that to happen but it is always possible.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:55 AM
> To: Richard Barnes
> Cc: Sean Turner; jose chair; jose mailing list; RFC Editor
> Subject: RE: [jose] Document Action: 'Use Cases and Requirements for 
> JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)' to Informational RFC
(draft-ietf-jose-
> use-cases-06.txt)
> 
> I'd meant to ask about the status of the JOSE Use Cases document 
> during IETF 89 and the JOSE meeting went so quickly and smoothly, it 
> slipped my mind then to ask! :-)
> 
> Do we have any sense how close we are to having a JOSE Use Cases RFC?
> 
> Also, have the issues identified in http://www.ietf.org/mail- 
> archive/web/jose/current/msg03817.html been addressed in the current 
> RFC Editor draft?  If so, could someone please point us to it so that 
> the working group can review the changes?
> 
> 				Thanks,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Turner [mailto:TurnerS@ieca.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:34 AM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: Richard Barnes; jose chair; jose mailing list; RFC Editor
> Subject: Re: [jose] Document Action: 'Use Cases and Requirements for 
> JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)' to Informational RFC
(draft-ietf-jose-
> use-cases-06.txt)
> 
> These are pretty minor and can be fixed during AUTH48.  Between the 
> chairs and I we'll remember to get this edited.
> 
> spt
> 
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 07:58, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Are the issues identified in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/jose/current/msg03817.html being addressed as RFC Editor 
> notes?  If so, can you please point the working group to the editing 
> instructions, so they can be reviewed by the working group?
> >
> > 				Thanks,
> > 				-- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:32 AM
> > To: IETF-Announce
> > Cc: jose chair; jose mailing list; RFC Editor
> > Subject: [jose] Document Action: 'Use Cases and Requirements for 
> > JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)' to Informational RFC
> > (draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-06.txt)
> >
> > The IESG has approved the following document:
> > - 'Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption
> >   (JOSE)'
> >  (draft-ietf-jose-use-cases-06.txt) as Informational RFC
> >
> > This document is the product of the Javascript Object Signing and
> Encryption Working Group.
> >
> > The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell.
> >
> > A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-use-cases/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Technical Summary
> >
> >   This document defines a set of use cases and requirements
> >   for a secure object format encoded using JavaScript Object Notation
> >   (JSON), drawn from a variety of application security mechanisms
> >   currently in development.
> >
> > Working Group Summary
> >
> >   The document represents the consuses of the working group.
> >   The document was not controversial during the working group
> >   discussions.
> >
> > Document Quality
> >
> >  The document has not had a large amount of review outside of  the 
> > JOSE working group.  As such it is possible that the group  has 
> > missed or mis-represented the set of use cases that the  JOSE 
> > working group needs to address when generating the  specifications in the group.
> > The OAUTH working group views  are well presented, but it does not 
> > have sufficient apps area review.
> >
> > Personnel
> >
> >   Document Shepherd is Jim Schaad
> >   Area Director is Sean Turner
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list
> > jose@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list
> > jose@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose