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

Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Wed, 03 August 2011 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.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 7D57221F8581 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 WAKQtGBUBq-o for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9432121F857D for <woes@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mamille2@cisco.com; l=4647; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312407179; x=1313616779; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=AvLWNqvYyI9RZ1sJq4utjzutgB+ubz9loCLizJp/L4E=; b=ktE/Qn1CsdcIjPrS/pFL6faPyCbwUqrehailrF3lJm0ez3EXXQt6Bztf mB6F5DxHGA0Txxb53EZ5WaU/KrYxtrjsfNLos5P0iTO4t1jphk4eMRp21 qAqmwqLvD7YIg8TSYBe5ADYgpwiIWrQJMqRdUm8++UyTZSaVQyJQfyis2 I=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2214
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAFe9OU6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABCp2F3gUABAQEBAgESAWYFCwsYLgJVBhMih0qiIQGeaIVjXwSHWoshkQM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.67,312,1309737600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="9418635"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 21:32:58 +0000
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-212.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-212.cisco.com [64.101.72.212]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p73LWvfI031029; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:32:57 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-13--907468616; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1312406028.32682.72.camel@dynamo>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:33:00 -0600
Message-Id: <4D12BCE6-A697-4A73-8019-6485872747A8@cisco.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 (2.1084)
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:32:46 -0000

On Aug 3, 2011, at 15:13, 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?
> 

I think there's real benefit to having JSON as the envelope, and serious problems forcing all other structures to encode/decode as JSON.  At least for XMPP, a JSON representation can turn out to be larger than the original XML.  I imagine there's other data formats this is the case.


- m&m

Matt Miller - <mamille2@cisco.com>
Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc.