IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 03 August 2011 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 4C99321F8634 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 jJrOY17dx-nj for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A4922800E for <woes@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-239.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.239]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0D01400F6; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:51:33 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E39B483.7080101@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:50:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E743D3330@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu> <4E39B44C.1070706@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E39B44C.1070706@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:50:00 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email