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

I'm with Mike on not being aligned on the new change. Here is my take on why yet-another-token-format was desired 

+ Ability to represent complex data
=> simple name/value pairs in URL query strings and and HTTP headers led to obtuse, overloaded representations
=> JSON

+ Easy to parse using readily available libraries
=> JSON

+ Easy to include in URLs and HTTP headers
=> the token did not require special encoding
=> the token was short
	=> URL base 64 encoding JSON and separating binary fields with '.' separator => easy to parse

On Apr 5, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose