Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <turners@ieca.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 5A4FD11E8098 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.177
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 X2h-ghitiqN1 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm28-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm28-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A79C411E8070 for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.94.237.126] by nm28.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 18:26:56 -0000
Received: from [98.139.221.62] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 18:26:56 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp103.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 18:26:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 498314.13405.bm@smtp103.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: TRMy6UsVM1nHTRXnZ7EkBerdRAYlm8COIAlDwP2xSgKDRl5 NuOeK09s8pi8NcTko5sBLxQPUSha_xSyB9ezPp4yJ39GgcRaEQHEXUW8Ql3E PC_uB4inQMPFtPnJlm8ZKqeWPbL24ii_7st4Hyy74YYKyzEPwCIKUCCNL5LL Ab68Qryv9dn5z2_DovVYXaEIIZ3s.eLdX6HzroyPp.7v63fu3SflKRovW0U8 dLJU.nEB_BMIINBCXN0mkXLBjkUcnSodZX2RzMsB_9VH07VOn91.zi5Esb1B HgxpHwuRzY0D2uuOhRY9oEJ3QZwOK.RJrnngbl6MOiXBkbTh4Rr86Hvu6oMG tnTjHkEg_LCCQz2XTQp2y2EReVR19YwW.djxwhsw_vyBZn4zKNhEUvMPBMD2 eQYxjJfqDLQPs3yfQ
X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ
Received: from thunderfish.westell.com (turners@71.191.6.113 with plain) by smtp103.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 Aug 2011 11:26:55 -0700 PDT
Message-ID: <4E3C35EE.7010203@ieca.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:26:54 -0400
From: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeremy Laurenson <jlaurens@cisco.com>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <15A4A9CD-FC3C-4D51-9EB5-6D05F372F5E2@gmail.com> <1A100FDB-9402-4541-93E3-E821E6BF7496@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1A100FDB-9402-4541-93E3-E821E6BF7496@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:26:39 -0000
The AD did push back on the dates ;) Part of the process to get buy-in is progressing the charter. It'll go out for two weeks internally to the IETF and then probably another two externally (W3C, etc.). I'll make sure to bring it up with the W3C liaison (shocked if he's not on this list). We (Stpehen and I) are also keeping the Apps ADs in the loop (both Pete and Peter were at the WOES/JOSE session). There's also other IETF areas monitoring what's going on. As to the deliverable dates, I think we should try to be somewhat aggressive. I'd rather not build in 'wait time.' Getting something through the IESG by March (as I suggested) is going to be a challenge. spt On 8/4/11 2:18 PM, Jeremy Laurenson wrote: > Agree - I would think the ADs would agree and push back. > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> Is the object here to arrive at an RFC or to arrive at a standard with a broad base of support in the web services apps community? >> >> If the latter the I suggest much more time so as to have the ability to get buy in from the relevant community. >> >> >> Sent from my angry birds pad >> >> On Aug 2, 2011, at 19:13, Paul Hoffman<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote: >> >>> Here is a proposal for the charter based on the discussion in the BoF last week and later discussion with Sean Turner. Comments, praise, scorn, etc., are welcome. >>> >>> --Paul and Richard >>> >>> Javascript Object Signing and Encrypting (jose) >>> =============================================== >>> >>> Background >>> ---------- >>> >>> Javascript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the serialization of structured data described in RFC 4627. The JSON format is often used for serializing and transmitting structured data over a network connection. With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services such as encryption and digital signatures for data that is being carried in JSON format. >>> >>> Different proposals for providing such security services have already been defined and implemented. This Working Group's task is to standardize two security services, encrypting and digitally signing, in order to increase interoperability of security features between protocols that use JSON. The Working Group will base its work on well-known message security primitives (e.g., CMS), and will solicit input from the rest of the IETF Security Area to be sure that the security functionality in the JSON format is correct. >>> >>> This group is chartered to work on four documents: >>> >>> 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured digital signature to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures. "Digital signature" is defined as a hash operation followed by a signature operation using asymmetric keys. >>> >>> 2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures. >>> >>> 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public keys as JSON-structured objects. >>> >>> 4) A Standards Track document specifying mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the other three documents. >>> >>> The working group may decide to address one or more of these goals in a single document, in which case the concrete milestones for signing/encryption below will both be satisfied by the single document. >>> >>> Goals and Milestones >>> -------------------- >>> >>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON object signing document as a WG item. >>> >>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON object encryption document as a WG item. >>> >>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON key format document as a WG item. >>> >>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON algoritm document as a WG item. >>> >>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object signing document. >>> >>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object encryption document. >>> >>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document. >>> >>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document. >>> >>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON object signing document to IESG for consideration as >>> Standards Track document. >>> >>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON object encryption document to IESG for consideration >>> as Standards Track document. >>> >>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON key format document to IESG for consideration >>> as Standards Track document. >>> >>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON algorithm document to IESG for consideration >>> as Standards Track document. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> woes mailing list >>> woes@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes >> _______________________________________________ >> woes mailing list >> woes@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes > > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > woes@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes >
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charte… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand