Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Mon, 25 July 2011 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
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 4DDB421F8C25 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jppRf-5+90Zp for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from backup-server.nordu.net (backup-server.nordu.net [IPv6:2001:948:4:1::66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801F121F8C24 for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.8.54] ([130.129.8.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by backup-server.nordu.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6PIbk3q029692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <woes@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:37:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E2DB7FA.2010601@mnt.se>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:37:46 +0200
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: woes@ietf.org
References: <B2ABF893-10E6-496A-8F63-FFA2C9C89541@vpnc.org> <0DE0E2DE-A2FC-40DF-978B-594658571658@vpnc.org> <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723160841@CH1PRD0302MB115.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <23656536-E4BA-41BE-AA61-A23654246826@gmx.net> <A42506AF-BE66-4308-AD7B-03B4323D87CE@vpnc.org> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D3F7F1@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4E164455.9020309@cs.tcd.ie> <4E171C20.8000305@dcrocker.net> <4E1F557F.8030500@cs.tcd.ie> <4E20DA1E.1020201@bbiw.net> <4E20DD0B.2080106@cs.tcd.ie> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394348D4C6D2@TK5EX14MBXC201.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <428F491B-718F-4B5D-BF96-C82CE0777A53@bbn.com> <1311613198.28852.54.camel@dynamo> <4E2DA4D5.90309@mnt.se> <4E2DB3BF.5050006@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E2DB3BF.5050006@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [woes] New 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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:37:55 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/25/2011 08:19 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 7/25/2011 1:16 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 07/25/2011 06:59 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>>> I now find myself hoping this is not the beginning someone making a case 
>>> for ASN.1 encoding in WOES.
>>>
>>> For my edification, can someone comment on how CMS would likely be
>>> referenced in WOES? Would it likely be a normative reference (i.e. key
>>> transport/wrapping, as it is in xmlenc-core), or otherwise would it
>>> probably be just informational?
>>
>> We seem to be bike-shedding on the words "based on" in the charter.
>> Perhaps it helps if we say something to the effect that WOES draws
>> upon experience from CMS and XML-dsig/enc and leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 1. There is considerably more than a bikeshedding difference between
> 
>    a) normative dependence on a protocol, where the new exercise is
> merely a syntactic re-coding"
> 
> vs, for example
> 
>    b) "take the ideas from the existing work and use them as a basis for
> writing a new protocol."
> 
> 2. There is a significant constituency in the current topic that are
> using language that sounds very much like option a) above.

The '+1's today seem to indicate there is significant support for (2)
but I'm not so sure the difference is all that big.

I propose that the asn.1->json technology change is big enough (if you
take things like tooling, development models etc into account) so as
to make a literal 1-1 translation unlikely.

WOES will (imho) have to make intelligent choices about what to keep
from cms and what it doesn't need. That to me sounds more like "drawing
experience from" rather than "basing on".

	Cheers Leif


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk4tt/oACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZneKqwCfSHDexPJ7itUftnmx/H8jbw/D
JxoAni7Y0WEwDsUQg47tANzNUu06Nbf5
=dj/Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----