On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Mike Jones wrote: > I strongly disagree with the "basing on CMS" wording. I'd be OK with wording > more like "drawing upon existing inputs such as CMS, XMLDSIG, and XMLENC". > > There's a lot to reuse from these documents. But it's prejudicial to have a > discussion that starts from the assumption that we are basing this work on > CMS.
As someone who participated in the early XMLDSIG and XMLENC work, I have to ask: what do they have for this JSON work that CMS doesn't? That is, there was a conscious attempt to mirror CMS structures in them. Where they strayed (such as on namespaces), they went to hell. One or two examples here would really help. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
