I would also strongly urge talking to the OASIS people on this. OASIS has a big dog in this fight, OK they are a bit XML centric, but they are responsible for a very significant fraction of actual Web Services applications.
I am much less worried about how fast the boat travels as how many people are on board when it sails. On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > The AD did push back on the dates ;) > > Part of the process to get buy-in is progressing the charter. It'll go out > for two weeks internally to the IETF and then probably another two > externally (W3C, etc.). I'll make sure to bring it up with the W3C liaison > (shocked if he's not on this list). We (Stpehen and I) are also keeping the > Apps ADs in the loop (both Pete and Peter were at the WOES/JOSE session). > There's also other IETF areas monitoring what's going on. > > As to the deliverable dates, I think we should try to be somewhat > aggressive. I'd rather not build in 'wait time.' Getting something through > the IESG by March (as I suggested) is going to be a challenge. > > spt > > > On 8/4/11 2:18 PM, Jeremy Laurenson wrote: > >> Agree - I would think the ADs would agree and push back. >> >> On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> Is the object here to arrive at an RFC or to arrive at a standard with a >>> broad base of support in the web services apps community? >>> >>> If the latter the I suggest much more time so as to have the ability to >>> get buy in from the relevant community. >>> >>> >>> Sent from my angry birds pad >>> >>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 19:13, Paul Hoffman<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Here is a proposal for the charter based on the discussion in the BoF >>>> last week and later discussion with Sean Turner. Comments, praise, scorn, >>>> etc., are welcome. >>>> >>>> --Paul and Richard >>>> >>>> Javascript Object Signing and Encrypting (jose) >>>> ==============================**================= >>>> >>>> Background >>>> ---------- >>>> >>>> Javascript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the serialization >>>> of structured data described in RFC 4627. The JSON format is often used for >>>> serializing and transmitting structured data over a network connection. >>>> With >>>> the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF and elsewhere, there >>>> is >>>> now a desire to offer security services such as encryption and digital >>>> signatures for data that is being carried in JSON format. >>>> >>>> Different proposals for providing such security services have already >>>> been defined and implemented. This Working Group's task is to standardize >>>> two security services, encrypting and digitally signing, in order to >>>> increase interoperability of security features between protocols that use >>>> JSON. The Working Group will base its work on well-known message security >>>> primitives (e.g., CMS), and will solicit input from the rest of the IETF >>>> Security Area to be sure that the security functionality in the JSON format >>>> is correct. >>>> >>>> This group is chartered to work on four documents: >>>> >>>> 1) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured >>>> digital signature to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data >>>> structures. "Digital signature" is defined as a hash operation followed by >>>> a >>>> signature operation using asymmetric keys. >>>> >>>> 2) A Standards Track document specifying how to apply a JSON-structured >>>> encryption to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures. >>>> >>>> 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public keys as >>>> JSON-structured objects. >>>> >>>> 4) A Standards Track document specifying mandatory-to-implement >>>> algorithms for the other three documents. >>>> >>>> The working group may decide to address one or more of these goals in a >>>> single document, in which case the concrete milestones for >>>> signing/encryption below will both be satisfied by the single document. >>>> >>>> Goals and Milestones >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON object signing document as a WG item. >>>> >>>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON object encryption document as a WG item. >>>> >>>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON key format document as a WG item. >>>> >>>> Aug 2011 Submit JSON algoritm document as a WG item. >>>> >>>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object signing >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object encryption >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document. >>>> >>>> Jan 2012 Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document. >>>> >>>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON object signing document to IESG for >>>> consideration as >>>> Standards Track document. >>>> >>>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON object encryption document to IESG for >>>> consideration >>>> as Standards Track document. >>>> >>>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON key format document to IESG for consideration >>>> as Standards Track document. >>>> >>>> Feb 2012 Submit JSON algorithm document to IESG for consideration >>>> as Standards Track document. >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> woes mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes> >>>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> woes mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes> >>> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> woes mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/woes<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes> >> >> -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
