PCS8 "standard" or not is probably the one to no miss
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Rudy De Busscher <rdebussc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Primarily what I'd like to do is really nail the public key format
> > manipulation. I did a huge amount of research in this and would like to
> > come up with an extremely well tested library that can natively read all
> > the dominate file formats PKCS 1 & 5 PEM, JWK{S} and has command-line
> tools
> > for converting between them.
>
>
> That would be super awesome. I have been working on the same thing the past
> month or so.
>
> Rudy
>
> On 2 May 2018 at 00:13, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Requested a repo we could potentially use for this.
> >
> > Primarily what I'd like to do is really nail the public key format
> > manipulation. I did a huge amount of research in this and would like to
> > come up with an extremely well tested library that can natively read all
> > the dominate file formats PKCS 1 & 5 PEM, JWK{S} and has command-line
> tools
> > for converting between them.
> >
> > This could be useful to both the TomEE and Geronimo MicroProfile JWT
> impls.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:32 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The code still is in a PR (#123) for the moment
> > >
> > > I'm in to help.
> > > Still some small fixes to do and I'd like MP-Config to be used to
> > configure
> > > keys, issues, and others.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Mark Struberg
> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> As noted elsewhere: the vote question was a mixture of 'what do you
> > >> think' (consensus -> majority vote) and 'is it ok' (technical ->
> > unanimous
> > >> vote).
> > >> I'd also be in favour to do the generic parts in Geronimo and only do
> > the
> > >> integration in TomEE. So yes, in a consensus vote I'd also vote -1. If
> > this
> > >> is interpreted as commit vote then I vote -0
> > >> The work is the same and as long as it's been done I'm fine either
> ways.
> > >> Now that we did all the 3 weeks of rambling and discussions let's
> focus
> > on
> > >> the important stuff.
> > >> Where is the code? Who did already work on it? Or do we again have 30
> > >> people discussing but just 2 working? ;)
> > >>
> > >> LieGrue,strub
> > >> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018, 01:14:57 CEST, David Blevins <
> > >> david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mar 31, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> It was more as a "if im always the only one seeing tomee differently
> i
> > >> can
> > >>> leave to let you space". Not as a threat.
> > >>
> > >> That's a generous sentiment. Either way the best outcome is that you
> > stay
> > >> and we all learn the lesson that disagreeing is ok and healthy. How
> is
> > the
> > >> most important part.
> > >>
> > >> Disagreement can be an incredibly productive and innovative thing if
> > done
> > >> right. By definition, that means this project is sitting on some
> > >> incredible innovative potential.
> > >>
> > >> A concrete way I think we can measure ourselves is by the number of
> > people
> > >> who feel comfortable voting. I would consider a vote of 20 people
> that
> > >> included 3 -1 votes to be significantly more healthy than a vote of 3
> > >> people and all +1s.
> > >>
> > >>> [...]
> > >>> There is no veto at apache if you check rules closely. All is more
> > about
> > >>> respect and overall consensus IIRC.
> > >>
> > >> I want to be careful that we don't learn a false lesson as Apache does
> > >> have technical vetos. These are more meant for line-of-code level
> > input vs
> > >> community direction.
> > >>
> > >> The intention of the two votes was to make the line a little more
> clear.
> > >>
> > >> - The first vote "Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support"
> was
> > >> intended to flush out line-of-code level technical issues with the PR:
> > >> breaks the build; doesn't follow code style; introduces security
> issues.
> > >> It's ultimately a Review-than-Commit vote and a -1 should be viewed
> as a
> > >> technical veto.
> > >>
> > >> - The second vote "Explore creating a reusable JWT Library" was
> intended
> > >> to determine overall desire on what the next step should be. No
> commit
> > >> being reviewed, more of a community level discussion. A -1 should not
> > be
> > >> viewed as a veto.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -David
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
