Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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/
>