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

If you can live with that, let's use it.  I remain profoundly uncomfortable with Sean's wording.

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rlb@ipv.sx]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 3:46 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Barry Leiba; Sean Turner; jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] updated draft charter text incorporating AD's comments

I could live with that text, but I really dislike weasel words like "JSON-based".  What does that mean?

Given that we're putting a JSON serialization in the base spec, it doesn't seem like Sean's text would require any change in direction.

--Richard

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Thanks Barry.

How about "representing integrity-protected data using JSON-based data structures" and "representing encrypted data using JSON-based data structures"?  That would read better than the original and still not be able to be misconstrued to say that what the working group has produced doesn't meet the charter goals.

                                Thanks,
                                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Sean Turner; jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] updated draft charter text incorporating AD's comments
> 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<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
jose@ietf.org<mailto:jose@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose