Re: [jose] Proposal about the SPI proposal

Obviously, this will not be in a -00 draft for Orlando.  So discussion
should continue based on the text proposed to the list.

Does anyone have further technical comments?

--Richard

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> wrote:

> ditto.
>
> 2013/2/11 Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com>
>
>> +1 for new I-D.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
>> *To:* "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
>> *Sent:* Fri, February 8, 2013 3:01:51 PM
>> *Subject:* [jose] Proposal about the SPI proposal
>>
>> Maybe this was apparent from my comments/questions on the SPI proposal
>> over the last couple days[1] but I have concerns that run the gamut from
>> operational complexity and fragility to security problems. I believe
>> strongly that, without considerably more analysis and specification detail,
>> the current SPI work is much too risky to consider go in the current base
>> JOSE WG drafts.
>>
>> As an alternative I'd like to request/propose that the SPI stuff be
>> submitted as new I-D to help facilitate that additional discussion and
>> analysis that I think it needs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg01500.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>