Agree that 4 is scope creep that is outside of the scope of normal security area stuff, but it's likely to be a prereq. I'm fine with dropping it from the charter, potentially getting support from the Apps ADs to move stuff like JSON Schema through the Apps AWG.
On 6/16/11 11:51 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 3 & 4 there look a bit like scope-creep to me > > Why are they absolutely needed? > > S. > > On 16/06/11 18:33, Joe Hildebrand wrote: >> Slight tweaks >> >> >> On 6/16/11 11:26 AM, "Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 1) A JSON-based method of applying digital signatures and keyed message >>> digests to data that may represent JSON data structures. >> >> ... may represent arbitrary data, including JSON data structures and text >> >>> 2) A JSON-based method of applying encryption to data that may represent >>> JSON data structures. >> >> Same as 1) above. Not just for JSON. >> >>> 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 Also, please update and/or add these references (some were out of date, some 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): >> >> Let's also add: >> >> 4) Any JSON-specific prerequisite tooling such as JSON Schema >> >> And add draft-zyp-json-schema as a reference. I CC'd Kris Zyp to see if >> he's ok with that. Kris: this might be a chance for a WG to pick up JSON >> Schema if you like. >> -- Joe Hildebrand _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
