Re: [jose] Call for adoption

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 14 February 2013 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 496EE21F881E for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:25:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.38
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PXLjp3hx6nQT for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:25:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f178.google.com (mail-qc0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B93B21F8812 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id j34so879163qco.23 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:25:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=Z0+XBPbMAhT4528DwuOnSbOgvuBSLAMx7F42RKWsCAc=; b=HPCa6L0iYf2frYe3N+Jq1D1z6caenAJu6vWkKMDcGtZSEjYwLxyw47yhCJ29J5pJmq 6iTH6nycOnZEvwpp5ipkmR0J2IrlY9X+XvQWWwDcpHJuIoyTMAoZXyZ/GoslEqnuP5Rl XNHz35itgh+bTAqL76riw+oPr+N3P8HN951fhJNws1xPeUE2pSMPK9wSarfCP29mUB4W cqpIKz11zWHfZbRNsVFTxRyF4kr9zq0Om/4gOJ6vQMP98KwAVnvmlpIoUq0vYEztlYLk rSfKy+cahYe3kcL+WDdE61tjlfwqv3HJHVSx8oT3T860Ebemj3kkmjrK7w28ZAz8uARM s//Q==
X-Received: by 10.224.31.209 with SMTP id z17mr674210qac.28.1360851910335; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.213] (190-20-16-126.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.16.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dt10sm18496955qab.0.2013.02.14.06.25.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8CD2E5F2-C59B-4341-8C64-004FCE16734F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCTqWncm1=wt_p36NdsdfzHWx-cj3MQNfiuiKKGe9JvUag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:24:53 -0300
Message-Id: <427CDD8C-BAD1-4D33-B2F7-BF0B983C73DB@ve7jtb.com>
References: <02b601ce0a17$db6c3370$92449a50$@augustcellars.com> <CAL02cgSFe=Sphj9PL-GF56-F_G_1JtpZ2OzMW3JiFgzRCUkxTA@mail.gmail.com> <EADF8FEF-7C0F-4C7A-8336-23AC2782B975@gmx.net> <CA+k3eCTqWncm1=wt_p36NdsdfzHWx-cj3MQNfiuiKKGe9JvUag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnI8pSmKtPr7L92jAEo8xvCtFc4jdcSUlJqcYE+ZjbB9WTkvFykAWRxzbpjQXdH3G+j1r+U
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Call for adoption
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:25:12 -0000

To be fair the reason the use-cased are hard to find is that they are not WG documents.

If we adopt the documents at least we can find them.   I think the use cases can hep us get on the sam page in the group something we haves had a challenge with on occasion

So I agree with Richard that draft-barnes-jose-use-cases (link included for Brian) become a WG item.

Not to suck up to Richard too much:)

I also agree with Mike that the two other documents Draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization and Draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization become WG items, and fight it out later on the question of merging them with the base specs which may be a good idea.

I don't agree with Hannes just because:)

John B.



On 2013-02-14, at 10:23 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:

> For better or worse, I think Hannes' assessment of the value of use case documents is spot on. And as such, I think it's legitimate to question the inclusion of the JOSE use cases as a working group document.
> 
> Perhaps a case in point, I'd never actually read the use case document and thought maybe I should at least take a glance before spouting off any opinions here. So I went to find the doc in via the links in the original message in this thread only to find that the use cases link was bad.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I agree with Richard on the serialization documents.
> 
> On the use cases I have a mixed view. As we have seen in the OAuth working group with use cases it is easy to get the group to add a new use case document but very difficult to get others to find reviewers to get it finished. I am not sure what the target audience would be with such a document.
> 
> Let's assume that the audience for the document is the JOSE group. First, the requirements are not really adding a lot to the discussion since they are really basic (more or less what can be found in the charter). The use cases in Section 4 are out-of-date and are typically better described in the referenced documents. One of the four use cases is obsolete by now: the ATOCA use case is gone with the decisions from the last IETF meeting since the group entire group got trashed. ALTO IMHO does not seem to go anywhere either.
> 
> Sorry if I do not get excited anymore about the value of use case (and requirements) documents. The main challenges are that
> 
> a) you don't want to describe use cases that relate to work where it hasn't even been decided to use the specific technology (in this case JSON), and
> b) when a use case of interest to the group is found that requires additional functionality then a new extension/solution is defined in a separate document that typically provides a better description than in the use case document itself.
> 
> Consequently, the value of separate use case document goes close to zero.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 5:23 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 
> > I support the adoption of the use cases draft.  Clearer use cases will help this group refine a lot of the ideas that are floating around.
> >
> > I do not support the adoption of the JSON serialization documents.  A JSON serialization should be part of the base documents. I have already made a proposal to the list for how to do this, which is essentially the same as the one in the JSON serialization documents.  It would have a small impact on the base specs, and make the base format much more usable.
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg01465.html
> >
> > --Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > The chairs of the JOSE working group have dropped the ball on this (really me).
> >
> >
> >
> > At the last face-to-face meeting there was a call for the following documents to become working group documents:
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft-barnes-jose-use-cases – Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization – JSON Web Encryption JSON Serialization (JWE-JS)
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization – JSON Web Signature JSON Serialization (JWS-JS)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The chairs are going to assume that the working group wants to adopt these three documents as that was the overwhelming response in Atlanta.  Thus you only need to reply if you object to these documents being adopted.  This call will end 27 February.
> >
> >
> >
> > (Note that we will be looking at the private key drafts during the Orlando meeting and issuing an adoption call shortly after that meeting.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose