Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 14 July 2011 20:46 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 24DC611E80C1 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.875, 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 u7geBzHp6I3C for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.32.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E79D11E8095 for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8346C171BFE; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:45:54 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1310676354; bh=dCWPt+FXrWlym5 7/WZZNmTzDFcViOiKMQAn3YIs9EVg=; b=S28fBV02hCAHvY3TNHyy8xWAK+Bw4v TJK07H1LCGHa8bkw4P0fw54NfZxX5zmhnC7toHWw4rQKrtzThkq60E8ccjOv2Vu2 7mv7fXhnnqKH/8UNBjnkfKqNCdcZ00lx3f8Swyq8v2hPRJl+lqXw6hQKoNcG7mZs Gjs+KVhYEtFAdjv51GuV4dYwk/64GobLiZNi5aF8UEQrfm5r5t59mwueLv3DmNql WfMhHRoBl6VG90GyLqs4UEcDjMlNxOqnkNlAiJ3ETnuKafTuQYaAQqX1cKfJmk6x R9wobAz8+MYZBMkujECCFUndNeKzVoGSmTbNaQqduzcR3aXFoLjqdKeA==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id t5OyF9UHKXWC; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:45:54 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.9] (unknown [86.42.18.81]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6078E171BFA; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:45:51 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4E1F557F.8030500@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:45:51 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E171C20.8000305@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:46:17 -0000
Hi Dave, (Sorry for the slow response, I've been offline for a week.) On 08/07/11 16:02, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 7/7/2011 4:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> On 08/07/11 00:21, Mike Jones wrote: >>> There are other requirements not met by CMS for many of our use >>> cases. For instance, having a compact representation and having a >>> URL-safe implementation. >>> >>> I'm fine with CMS being *one* of the input documents, but I believe >>> it's too strong a statement to say that we've decided up-front that >>> the goal is to "JSONize CMS" or to have the charter reflect that >>> narrowing of the mission. >> >> Can you say what is not in CMS that might be needed here? >> I find it hard to think of anything myself, but if there >> are things, (specific features, that is) that'd be good >> to know. > > > Stephen, > > From the standpoint of argumentation process, your question is literally > out of order. That is, out of sequence. > > It calls for criticizing details that have not been stated. > > The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more explicit > details about what is being proposed in the use of CMS. After that, > critics can point to missing details or details that they believe should > not apply here, or alternatives with better details, or... Well, I don't really follow your logic there, but we're not aiming to do a new thing here. A few years ago, we did the CMS->XML thing as Paul pointed out. Before that there were a number of other formats (X.400 security, EDIFACT/ANSI X9.42, MOSS, PGP, PEM) some aspects of which influenced CMS as I recall. (But didn't check back so the failing memory excuse may be needed in a bit:-) 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. S. > Richard's response is along the lines of what is first needed, but there > needs to be agreement on whatever is meant. > > I think there should be some explicit debate about the choices for > conceptual, semantic, syntactic, software, whatever highest point of > departure that will be used. There are choices and the differences are > meaningful. > > d/ >
- [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