Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Fri, 08 July 2011 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 7FF5621F8739 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, 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 Wqwm1sHUogVj for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6210521F872D for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.156] (adsl-67-124-149-98.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.149.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p68F32No007741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:03:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4E171C20.8000305@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:02:56 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: woes@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E164455.9020309@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:03:08 -0000
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... 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/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [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