On 16/07/11 01:23, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 7/14/2011 1:45 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more explicit >>> details about what is being proposed in the use of CMS. > ... >> Well, I don't really follow your logic there, but we're not >> aiming to do a new thing here. > ... >> 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. > > > Steve, > > Oh. This working group is merely a CMS encoding exercise? That was not > at all clear previously. > > I suspect I am not the only one who missed this as the anchoring and > inflexible premise to the work. (For reference, that requires even > stronger language than is in the current draft.)
Maybe you could put [] around the sarcasm, given that this is JSON related? :-) I asked for examples of what's not covered by CMS but is needed here. I did that actually wanting to get an answer since I may well be missing something. (So far, no substantive answer has been offered.) I was not trying to score some rhetorical points. S. _______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
