[woes] "Basing" on CMS

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 13 July 2011 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 986F411E821C for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.687
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 KTo7W80SFbLk for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97F511E8107 for <woes@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6DHgBCh029301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:42:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D47567@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:42:20 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85740676-D5A7-4809-A583-B5892EDAB6E8@vpnc.org>
References: <13E17156-7FC8-47DB-B04C-52F4EF6E68E1@vpnc.org> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D47567@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Subject: [woes] "Basing" on CMS
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, 13 Jul 2011 17:42:57 -0000

On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Mike Jones wrote:

> I strongly disagree with the "basing on CMS" wording.  I'd be OK with wording more like "drawing upon existing inputs such as CMS, XMLDSIG, and XMLENC".
> 
> There's a lot to reuse from these documents.  But it's prejudicial to have a discussion that starts from the assumption that we are basing this work on CMS.

As someone who participated in the early XMLDSIG and XMLENC work, I have to ask: what do they have for this JSON work that CMS doesn't? That is, there was a conscious attempt to mirror CMS structures in them. Where they strayed (such as on namespaces), they went to hell.

One or two examples here would really help.

--Paul Hoffman