On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 10:43:46PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-07-10, at 22:21, Mike Jones > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There are things I would have commented on in JCS > > Much of what discussion we had happened on the JSON mailing list. > There is a map (JSON object) key ordering mechanism in there for which I only > have the word “sick”, and this was commented on the JSON mailing list [1] (in > slightly more elaborate wording). That “feature” is still in there. No > comment. > > The disturbing part is that people are now running ahead and are trying to do > run-arounds around the JOSE format based on the old XMLDSig thinking. I > certainly suspected that was the point of JCS, but it plaid no role in the > IESG conflict review for this independent submission — I have seen very > inconsistent levels of attention in IESG to considerations about how a spec > will actually be used over time.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742#section-3 seems pretty clear that the IESG reviews the work that is being presented for publication on the Independent Submission stream, which would seem to exclude extensive consideration of what might be done later that builds upon such work. I'm not sure which of the 5 "types of conclusion" from RFC 5742 you are proposing should have been sent (and why)... Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
