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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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<[e-mail]>  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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> woes mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> woes mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>
>>
>>


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