Re: [woes] WOES Charter Proposal

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Wed, 15 June 2011 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.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 F356A1F0C6D for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
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 HRUosAWMi+tN for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1313C1F0C68 for <woes@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,368,1304258400"; d="scan'208";a="36084194"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipccni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.208]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2011 11:07:13 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6377"; a="29041468"
Received: from wsmsg3757.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.85]) by ipccni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2011 11:07:13 +1000
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3757.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.85]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:07:12 +1000
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:07:10 +1000
Thread-Topic: [woes] WOES Charter Proposal
Thread-Index: AcwqsL5Fz8VTdc6fSVSzRcZ2PkgMXAARQFTA
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E112868E5B98@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718D41FA35@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net> <4DF78CCB.8070103@ieca.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF78CCB.8070103@ieca.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [woes] WOES Charter Proposal
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, 15 Jun 2011 01:07:17 -0000

Sean,

I would make almost the opposite edits to the charter than you.
I think it is really helpful that the charter lists different existing proposals (JWT, SWT, MagicSigs, JSS, JSMS). They provides a great context for the WG; they show different approaches; they show people want something in this space.
I think most of the JSON background can be dropped.


  >Thanks for kicking this off Hannes.  In Prague, I thought the goal was 
  >pretty straightforward: JSONize CMS.  To that end I think we can clip 
  >out some of the references to work already done.  The BOF can decide 
  >later what draft is the basis for the starting point.

  ...
  <delete>
  > Different proposals for providing these
  > security services have been defined and implemented. Examples are: JSON
  > Web Token [JWT], Simple Web Tokens [SWT], Magic Signatures
  > [MagicSignatures], JSON Simple Sign [JSS], JavaScript Message Security
  > Format [JSMS].
  </delete>