Hi Dave, (Sorry for the slow response, I've been offline for a week.)
On 08/07/11 16:02, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 7/7/2011 4:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> On 08/07/11 00:21, Mike Jones wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Can you say what is not in CMS that might be needed here? >> I find it hard to think of anything myself, but if there >> are things, (specific features, that is) that'd be good >> to know. > > > Stephen, > > From the standpoint of argumentation process, your question is literally > out of order. That is, out of sequence. > > It calls for criticizing details that have not been stated. > > The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more explicit > details about what is being proposed in the use of CMS. After that, > critics can point to missing details or details that they believe should > not apply here, or alternatives with better details, or... Well, I don't really follow your logic there, but we're not aiming to do a new thing here. A few years ago, we did the CMS->XML thing as Paul pointed out. Before that there were a number of other formats (X.400 security, EDIFACT/ANSI X9.42, MOSS, PGP, PEM) some aspects of which influenced CMS as I recall. (But didn't check back so the failing memory excuse may be needed in a bit:-) Anyway the path for developing yet another crypto format is a pretty well trodden one and IMO CMS is the best current starting point for that process, so I think its entirely reasonable to ask people why they disagree with that. It does of course presume familiarity with CMS, but then that should be a prerequisite for working on woes, really. S. > Richard's response is along the lines of what is first needed, but there > needs to be agreement on whatever is meant. > > I think there should be some explicit debate about the choices for > conceptual, semantic, syntactic, software, whatever highest point of > departure that will be used. There are choices and the differences are > meaningful. > > d/ > _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
