Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Mon, 25 July 2011 16:10 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 5FD2B21F90E9 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, 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 GtwWKeTYz7gU for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED5521F8429 for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.253.76] (port=54560 helo=[130.129.99.195]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1QlM1v-000Mxa-1H; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:21:11 -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: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D4C6D2@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:21:08 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <428F491B-718F-4B5D-BF96-C82CE0777A53@bbn.com>
References: <B2ABF893-10E6-496A-8F63-FFA2C9C89541@vpnc.org> <0DE0E2DE-A2FC-40DF-978B-594658571658@vpnc.org> <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723160841@CH1PRD0302MB115.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <23656536-E4BA-41BE-AA61-A23654246826@gmx.net> <A42506AF-BE66-4308-AD7B-03B4323D87CE@vpnc.org> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D3F7F1@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4E164455.9020309@cs.tcd.ie> <4E171C20.8000305@dcrocker.net> <4E1F557F.8030500@cs.tcd.ie> <4E20DA1E.1020201@bbiw.net> <4E20DD0B.2080106@cs.tcd.ie> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D4C6D2@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: woes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:10:13 -0000
<hat type="individual"/> It's not clear to me what practical difference this requirement makes. I would expect that the DER encoding of CMS is probably more compact than a comparable JSON format, so you're not optimizing length by using JSON. And JSON doesn't define a URL-safe encoding. If minimizing the size of something in a URL is really your goal, it seems likely that size(base64(cms)) < size(urlencode(json)). Or, if you're willing to take the JSON penalty in byte-efficiency, are you trying to argue that there are fields that should be left out relative to CMS? Could you point to some examples? --Richard On Jul 15, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > Some use cases require a compact, URL-safe data representation. For instance, this is needed when the data is passed in a URL query parameter - particularly for feature phone browsers that may limit URLs to 1024 or sometimes even 256 characters. That's one concrete example of something not covered by CMS. > > Some end-to-end use cases require a JSON key representation and ways of referring to them. That's another concrete example of something not covered in CMS. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: woes-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:woes-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:36 PM > To: Dave CROCKER > Cc: woes@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal > > > > On 16/07/11 01:23, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> On 7/14/2011 1:45 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>>> The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more >>>> explicit details about what is being proposed in the use of CMS. >> ... >>> Well, I don't really follow your logic there, but we're not aiming to >>> do a new thing here. >> ... >>> Anyway the path for developing yet another crypto format is a pretty >>> well trodden one and IMO CMS is the best current starting point for >>> that process, so I think its entirely reasonable to ask people why >>> they disagree with that. >>> >>> It does of course presume familiarity with CMS, but then that should >>> be a prerequisite for working on woes, really. >> >> >> Steve, >> >> Oh. This working group is merely a CMS encoding exercise? That was >> not at all clear previously. >> >> I suspect I am not the only one who missed this as the anchoring and >> inflexible premise to the work. (For reference, that requires even >> stronger language than is in the current draft.) > > Maybe you could put [] around the sarcasm, given that this is JSON related? :-) > > I asked for examples of what's not covered by CMS but is needed here. I did that actually wanting to get an answer since I may well be missing something. (So far, no substantive answer has been offered.) I was not trying to score some rhetorical points. > > S. > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > woes@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes > > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > woes@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
- [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Mike Jones
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Mike Jones
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Stephen Farrell
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Dave CROCKER
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Dave CROCKER
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Stephen Farrell
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Stephen Farrell
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Mike Jones
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Stephen Farrell
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal John Bradley
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Dave CROCKER
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Mike Jones
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Mike Jones
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Dave CROCKER
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Stephen Farrell
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal Leif Johansson