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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 04 August 2011 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 D12D021F8B92 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 rqg6UgyAhEif for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B74021F8B8D for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so1250190qwc.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.195.10 with SMTP id ea10mr508656qab.273.1312462366546; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] ([190.22.14.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s14sm1315606qct.42.2011.08.04.05.52.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E2DA9D5B-8CC8-4A96-879F-0BE0EE4BC0AD"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E39B483.7080101@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:52:54 -0400
Message-Id: <DDAE45CD-111B-4C5F-83B0-0F267B8EC8E7@ve7jtb.com>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E743D3330@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu> <4E39B44C.1070706@stpeter.im> <4E39B483.7080101@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.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: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:52:32 -0000

In the JWS/JWE drafts the goal was to provide JSON envelopes for base64url encoded blobs.   

In most cased we intend for those to be JSON, but nothing prevents this from being used with XML similar to the failed SAML simple sign.

With JSON payloads we really wanted to avoid touching the payload.  Inserting elements, canonicalization  and other things that touch the payload are highly problematic.

John B.

On 2011-08-03, at 4:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes