There are other requirements not met by CMS for many of our use cases. For
instance, having a compact representation and having a URL-safe implementation.
I'm fine with CMS being *one* of the input documents, but I believe it's too
strong a statement to say that we've decided up-front that the goal is to
"JSONize CMS" or to have the charter reflect that narrowing of the mission.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul
Hoffman
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:18 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Anthony Nadalin; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> And what does it mean to "base it on CMS"?
>
> It could, for example, mean that
> 1) the same functionality as CMS has to be provided (but with a JSON encoding)
> 2) folks should look at CMS to get inspired
> 3) for a chosen subset of CMS that the JSON-based realization must be
> semantically equivalent (for example, to make translation easy or so)
> 4) re-use of parts is encouraged (such as registries, etc.)
>
> What did you had in mind, Paul?
I was reflecting an earlier message from our AD. On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:31 AM,
Sean Turner wrote:
> In Prague, I thought the goal was pretty straightforward: JSONize CMS.
That seems clear to me. It's closer to your #1 above, but the rest of the
proposed charter makes it clear that it is a subset of CMS, namely signing and
encrypting.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
