Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU> Wed, 03 August 2011 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <hardjono@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id A27F95E8003 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.750,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwcRWyCZA14Y for
<woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-6.MIT.EDU
[18.7.68.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9432022800D for
<woes@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074423-b7b31ae000000a3c-14-4e39b0ba0c30
Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by
dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id
68.DE.02620.AB0B93E4; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing-exchange-2.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-2.MIT.EDU
[18.9.28.16]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id
p73KXxss002160; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:33:59 -0400
Received: from W92EXEDGE6.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU (W92EXEDGE6.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU
[18.7.73.28]) by outgoing-exchange-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id
p73KXusC021921; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:33:58 -0400
Received: from w92exhub5.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.11) by
W92EXEDGE6.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU (18.7.73.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.289.1; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:33:24 -0700
Received: from EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.15]) by
w92exhub5.exchange.mit.edu ([18.7.73.11]) with mapi;
Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:33:56 -0400
From: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:33:55 -0400
Thread-Topic: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Thread-Index: AcxRadwR8xBFRNTnTUWfSjonksgscgAsbrLQ
Message-ID: <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E743D3330@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01CC51FB.23043060"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA02Sa0gUURiGOTOz66w4Ma2XPWohjoElrWmlaWr0o/BSiVB/sjBn3cld2l1l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Subject: Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Web Object Encryption and Signing \(woes\) BOF discussion list"
<woes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/woes>,
<mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/woes>
List-Post: <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>,
<mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:33:48 -0000
Paul, Looks good. Just my clarification, looking at 1) and 2) does it mean that the resulting JOSE WG specifications can be applied to non-JSON data structures? (I'm ok with this). Also, will RFC4627 be "upgraded" to standards track? Thanks. /thomas/ __________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: woes-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:woes-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Hoffman > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:14 PM > To: woes@ietf.org > Subject: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition > > Here is a proposal for the charter based on the discussion in the BoF > last week and later discussion with Sean Turner. Comments, praise, > scorn, etc., are welcome. > > --Paul and Richard > > Javascript Object Signing and Encrypting (jose) > =============================================== > > Background > ---------- > > Javascript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the > serialization of structured data described in RFC 4627. The JSON format > is often used for serializing and transmitting structured data over a > network connection. With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in > the IETF and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security > services such as encryption and digital signatures for data that is > being carried in JSON format. > > Different proposals for providing such security services have already > been defined and implemented. This Working Group's task is to > standardize two security services, encrypting and digitally signing, in > order to increase interoperability of security features between > protocols that use JSON. The Working Group will base its work on well- > known message security primitives (e.g., CMS), and will solicit input > from the rest of the IETF Security Area to be sure that the security > functionality in the JSON format is correct. > > This group is chartered to work on four documents: > > 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. > > 2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured > encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data > structures. > > 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public keys as > JSON-structured objects. > > 4) A Standards Track document specifying mandatory-to-implement > algorithms for the other three documents. > > The working group may decide to address one or more of these goals in a > single document, in which case the concrete milestones for > signing/encryption below will both be satisfied by the single document. > > Goals and Milestones > -------------------- > > Aug 2011 Submit JSON object signing document as a WG item. > > Aug 2011 Submit JSON object encryption document as a WG item. > > Aug 2011 Submit JSON key format document as a WG item. > > Aug 2011 Submit JSON algoritm document as a WG item. > > Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object signing > document. > > Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object encryption > document. > > Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document. > > Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document. > > Feb 2012 Submit JSON object signing document to IESG for > consideration as > Standards Track document. > > Feb 2012 Submit JSON object encryption document to IESG for > consideration > as Standards Track document. > > Feb 2012 Submit JSON key format document to IESG for consideration > as Standards Track document. > > Feb 2012 Submit JSON algorithm document to IESG for consideration > as Standards Track document. > > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > woes@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
- [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charte… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand