Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

[Hal Lockhart <[e-mail]>]

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:03 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> > IMO, symmetric integrity protection is a useful primitive, and it's
> > already part of the
> > JWT spec. I think all that's required here in the charter is to
> > wordsmith it to separate
> > out symmetric from asymmetric integrity algorithms,
> 
> Current:
> 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a 
> JSON-structured digital signature to data, including (but not 
> limited to) JSON data structures. "Digital signature" is 
> defined as a hash operation followed by a signature operation 
> using asymmetric keys.
> 
> It sounds like you would prefer something like:
> 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply 
> integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) 
> JSON data structures. This integrity protection can be 
> achieved with both symmetric and asymmetric algorithms.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
>