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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 61BBC1F0C3B for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.772, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
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 Ydhqn2FSu8Y2 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8A31F0C35 for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywm21 with SMTP id 21so2143992ywm.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/YcqNhYZrY9TG70H8mqsIhnEVgVy3CaQo5ZygXFmQJ0=; b=boKMU3XrFo1SBNCNfXkSieKDOJ6uu/qAUz3zoVWXr3TjDXVgKDktnq6Kf+3xLYo/yy F/lnRAz2diDoJNuQiMMCN5uhyGFJrNwNPM8TTAUNBbqSnzuXOdqJHOA2OwJbHVoe1ZJY xdS8y1LRleIdDJhp2BPBKvnzHwfPrwiINO7Rw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.190.6 with SMTP id s6mr2253532anp.50.1312570986852; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.34.3 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E3C35EE.7010203@ieca.com>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <15A4A9CD-FC3C-4D51-9EB5-6D05F372F5E2@gmail.com> <1A100FDB-9402-4541-93E3-E821E6BF7496@cisco.com> <4E3C35EE.7010203@ieca.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:03:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhPMQ==0khr-ZEbT9eD51zZvvTNtTY3s9n7hSdnLij7zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163691fc2d69f0cb04a9c6bf4b
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 19:02:50 -0000

I would also strongly urge talking to the OASIS people on this.

OASIS has a big dog in this fight, OK they are a bit XML centric, but they
are responsible for a very significant fraction of actual Web Services
applications.


I am much less worried about how fast the boat travels as how many people
are on board when it sails.


On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:

> 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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> woes mailing list
>>> woes@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> woes mailing list
>> woes@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>
>>
>>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/