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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 04 August 2011 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 8D47D21F8B18 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 XzzKxvBIDv9M for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAE321F8AD6 for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so1242135qwc.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.189.149 with SMTP id de21mr581529qcb.72.1312461556920; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] ([190.22.14.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 1sm1308074qcy.43.2011.08.04.05.39.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7D9364E4-5A19-4A68-994A-ECC4C59012DD"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E39B483.7080101@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:39:23 -0400
Message-Id: <8499B724-BC3D-4124-B8B2-B1FF762020E3@ve7jtb.com>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E743D3330@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu> <4E39B44C.1070706@stpeter.im> <4E39B483.7080101@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "woes@ietf.org" <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 12:39:05 -0000

Yes I was getting some grief from one of the large venders about openID Connect being based on JSON because it is not a standard like XML.

They were just being general prats about IPR things.  

However at some point someone (not JOSE) should look at the overall status of the JSON stack.
It is not a prerequisite for any JOSE work however.

John Bradley
On 2011-08-03, at 4:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 8/3/11 2:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/3/11 2:33 PM, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
>> 
>>> Also, will RFC4627 be "upgraded" to standards track?
>> 
>> There's no real need -- most of the media type registration RFCs are
>> informational. However, we might want to look at the entire "stack" of
>> JSON-related specs and move them all to standards track (media type,
>> schema, etc.).
> 
> Clarification: by "we" I do *not* mean the (presumptive) JOSE WG.
> 
> /psa
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes