IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Thu, 04 August 2011 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
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 5846A21F8726 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 QccbZI0dzO5D for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D017321F8751 for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.1.255.224] (port=57626 helo=col-dhcp-192-1-255-224.bbn.com) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1Qp3Xx-000Bai-N6; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:25:34 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <1312406028.32682.72.camel@dynamo>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:25:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C1C6BF51-8B91-4D32-A984-223F2C30476C@bbn.com>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E743D3330@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu> <5E1150D8-EF17-495C-BD48-965678026FB4@cisco.com> <1312406028.32682.72.camel@dynamo>
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: woes@ietf.org
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: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:25:19 -0000

My understanding was that a JOSE data structure would protect a sequence of octets, which could be whatever the signer/encryptor desires.  

JOSE:JSON::CMS:ASN.1

--Richard 


On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 14:35 -0600, Matt Miller wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 2011, at 14:33, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
>> 
>> > 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).
>> 
>> Yes; at least one of the desired uses is to sign/encrypt XMPP stanzas! (-:
>> 
> 
> For my edification, why would JOSE want to concern itself with representations of other media types, rather than allowing other transformations to deal with this?
> 
> Put another way, if there were a method of encapsulating and encoding non-JSON media types in a JSON structure, would JOSE seek to reinvent such a thing, or merely defer to using it?
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email