Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> ​​
> I think RFC 6962 could be improved substantially with some greater
> adherence to some structure.
>

​Could you be specific?  I just glanced at 6962 and it’s not obvious. ​

​​

​​

>
> Like many JSON Web services, message data is split between the message
> contents and the URL.
>
> More importantly, I would like to kill all the parts of the document that
> specify the TLS data format (using a schema) and replace them with JSON
> structures. But that isn't going to be possible without a better way to
> define structures.
>
> I don't think it is just a JSON issue though. While implementing TRANS I
> added support for the TLV format to the parser. I have not yet added it to
> any of the encoder or decoder libraries though.
>
> It is pretty clear that the proposers of CT are only interested in
> addressing notary services for the certificate application and so they are
> obsessed with size and compactness. Which is fine. But I certainly don't
> wish to carry that data encoding into any other notary application. So
> being able to write a schema that allows the data structures to be rendered
> in the legacy TLS encoding and in JSON becomes quite important.
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>