One change I'd request to the draft charter is that the group should be
chartered to produce one or more documents - not exactly two documents, per the
current proposal. That leaves the working group free to factor the solution as
makes best sense to the group. I'd change that section of the document to:
This group is chartered to work on one or more Standards Track documents
defining the following functionality:
1) A JSON-based method of applying digital signatures and keyed message
digests to data that may represent JSON data structures.
2) A JSON-based method of applying encryption to data that may represent
JSON data structures.
Separately, we may want to consider whether the following should be in scope:
3) A JSON-based method of representing public keys.
Also, please update and/or add these references (some were out of date, some
were missing):
[JWS] M. Jones, et al. "JSON Web Signature (JWS)",
draft-jones-json-web-signature-02 (work in progress), Apr. 2011.
[JWT] M. Jones, et al. "JSON Web Token (JWT)",
draft-jones-json-web-token-04 (work in progress), Mar. 2011.
[JWK] M. Jones. "JSON Web Key (JWK)", draft-jones-json-web-token-00 (work
in progress), Apr. 2011.
Thanks,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:44 AM
To: ext Manger, James H; Sean Turner; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [woes] WOES Charter Proposal
I put the JSON background there because the purpose of the working group is
meant to be understood also by those who have not been involved in the work.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of ext Manger, James H
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:07 AM
> To: Sean Turner; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [woes] WOES Charter Proposal
>
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
>
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
