Skip to main content

Javascript Object Signing and Encryption
charter-ietf-jose-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-12-15
04 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-jose-04.txt
2023-12-15
03-04 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat)
2023-12-15
03-04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2023-12-15
03-04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-12-15
03-04 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2023-12-14
03-04 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-12-14
03-04 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-12-14
03-04 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-12-14
03-04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2023-12-14
03-04 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-12-14
03-04 Éric Vyncke [Ballot comment]
Very clear charter with all work items having their intended status.
2023-12-14
03-04 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-12-13
03-04 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-12-13
03-04 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-12-13
03-04 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-12-13
03-04 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-12-12
03-04 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-12-12
03-04 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-12-06
03-04 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-12-05
03-04 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2023-12-14 from 2023-11-30
2023-12-05
03-04 Cindy Morgan Created "Approve" ballot
2023-12-05
03-04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2023-12-05
03-04 Cindy Morgan State changed to External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat) from Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review)
2023-12-05
03-04 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2023-12-05
03-04 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2023-12-05
03-04 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to No Objection from Block
2023-12-04
03-04 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-03-04.txt
2023-12-04
03-03 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-03-03.txt
2023-12-04
03-02 Roman Danyliw
Changed charter milestone "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm SLH-DSA in JOSE  (as proposed standard)", set description to "Adopt document describing the …
Changed charter milestone "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm SLH-DSA in JOSE  (as proposed standard)", set description to "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm NL-DSA in JOSE  (as proposed standard)"
2023-12-04
03-02 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-03-02.txt
2023-11-30
03-01 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-11-30
03-01 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Just one suggestion about the following text: `The WG will evaluate, and potentially adopt, documents dealing with algorithms that would fit the criteria …
[Ballot comment]
Just one suggestion about the following text: `The WG will evaluate, and potentially adopt, documents dealing with algorithms that would fit the criteria of being IETF consensus algorithms.`

Let's clarify that those documents will have an intended status of "proposed standards" as opposed to other algorithms that are clearly identified as "informational".
2023-11-30
03-01 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-11-30
03-01 Francesca Palombini
[Ballot comment]
I understand this is not part of the update, but just noticing it now...

This charter:

> Standards Track document(s) specifying how to …
[Ballot comment]
I understand this is not part of the update, but just noticing it now...

This charter:

> Standards Track document(s) specifying how to use existing cryptographic algorithms and defining their algorithm identifiers. The working group will not invent new cryptographic algorithms.
> ...
> Standards Track document(s) defining CBOR-based representations corresponding to all the above, building upon the COSE and CWT specifications in the same way that the above build on JOSE and JWT.

COSE charter:

> The COSE working group will deal with two types of documents going forward:
> Documents that describe the use of cryptographic algorithms in COSE.

This leads me to think there is a small overlap about COSE. That should not be a big problem, but at least I think it would be good to list COSE as one of the working groups JOSE should coordinate with.
2023-11-30
03-01 Francesca Palombini Ballot comment text updated for Francesca Palombini
2023-11-30
03-01 Francesca Palombini
[Ballot comment]
I understand this is not part of the update, but just noticing it now...

This charter say:

> Standards Track document(s) specifying how …
[Ballot comment]
I understand this is not part of the update, but just noticing it now...

This charter say:

> Standards Track document(s) specifying how to use existing cryptographic algorithms and defining their algorithm identifiers. The working group will not invent new cryptographic algorithms.
> ...
> Standards Track document(s) defining CBOR-based representations corresponding to all the above, building upon the COSE and CWT specifications in the same way that the above build on JOSE and JWT.

COSE charter say:

> The COSE working group will deal with two types of documents going forward:
> Documents that describe the use of cryptographic algorithms in COSE.

This leads me to think there is a small overlap about COSE. That should not be a big problem, but at least I think it would be good to list COSE as one of the working groups JOSE should coordinate with.
2023-11-30
03-01 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-11-29
03-01 Paul Wouters
[Ballot block]
I find the itemized charter bullets and the milestones rather unmatched? all milestones only cover 1 bullet point.


One nit:

    An …
[Ballot block]
I find the itemized charter bullets and the milestones rather unmatched? all milestones only cover 1 bullet point.


One nit:

    An Informational document defining test vectors for these new specifications.

I would also add the optional plural here as done for the other documents, eg Informational document(s)
As I can see, one wouldn't want to delay the test vector document until the last item is ready for RFC and test vector publication.
2023-11-29
03-01 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to Block from No Record
2023-11-29
03-01 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
One nit:

    An Informational document defining test vectors for these new specifications.

I would also add the optional plural here as …
[Ballot comment]
One nit:

    An Informational document defining test vectors for these new specifications.

I would also add the optional plural here as done for the other documents, eg Informational document(s)
As I can see, one wouldn't want to delay the test vector document until the last item is ready for RFC and test vector publication.
2023-11-29
03-01 Paul Wouters Ballot comment text updated for Paul Wouters
2023-11-29
03-01 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-11-29
03-01 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-11-28
03-01 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-11-27
03-01 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-11-24
03-01 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-11-20
03-01 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
When the JOSE WG was reopened in January 2023, the proponents and AD forgot to add charter scope to handle maintenance of prior …
[Ballot comment]
When the JOSE WG was reopened in January 2023, the proponents and AD forgot to add charter scope to handle maintenance of prior JOSE work.  This charter revision adds this scope.
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw Telechat date has been changed to 2023-11-30 from 2022-12-15
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw WG action text was changed
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw WG review text was changed
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw WG review text was changed
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw State changed to Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review) from Draft Charter
2023-11-16
03-01 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-03-01.txt
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw Added charter milestone "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm SLH-DSA in JOSE  (as proposed standard)", due April 2024
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw Added charter milestone "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm SLH-DSA in JOSE  (as proposed standard)", due April 2024
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw Added charter milestone "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm ML-DSA in JOSE  (as proposed standard)", due April 2024
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw Added charter milestone "Adopt document describing the use of the NIST algorithm ML-KEM in JOSE (as proposed standard)", due April 2024
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw Added charter milestone "Adopt document registering cryptographic algorithm identifiers that fully specify the cryptographic operations to be performed (as proposed standard)", due January 2024
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw State changed to Draft Charter from Approved
2023-11-16
03-00 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-03-00.txt
2023-01-26
03 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-jose-03.txt
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat)
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2023-01-26
02-02 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2022-12-15
02-02 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-12-15
02-02 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-02-02.txt
2022-12-15
02-01 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-12-14
02-01 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-12-13
02-01 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
It seems that the use of MD URL makes the text difficult to read (probably a datatracker rendering issue).

The 4th paragraph starting …
[Ballot comment]
It seems that the use of MD URL makes the text difficult to read (probably a datatracker rendering issue).

The 4th paragraph starting with "A multi-decade research activity..." is a little long (suggest to skip the first sentence). Having two sentences starting with "Some" makes this paragraph rather vague. Finally, once ZKP abbreviation is introduced, then let's use it.

s/This group is chartered to work on the following deliverables/This group is chartered to work on the following goals/ as later in the charter "One or more of these goals may be combined into a single document" (which would make sense).

About the CBOR encoding, should CDDL be mentioned ? Should CBOR WG be listed in the interested parties ?
2022-12-13
02-01 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2022-12-13
02-01 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2022-12-12
02-01 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Could I ask that you use Markdown "reference-style" links
(https://www.markdownguide.org/basic-syntax/#reference-style-links)
to improve the readability of the charter when viewed as plaintext?
2022-12-12
02-01 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2022-12-11
02-01 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-12-07
02-01 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-12-05
02-01 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2022-12-15 from 2022-12-01
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan Created "Approve" ballot
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan State changed to External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat) from Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review)
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan WG new work message text was changed
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2022-12-05
02-01 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2022-12-01
02-01 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-02-01.txt
2022-12-01
02-00 Robert Wilton [Ballot comment]
Thanks for a clear and tight charter.
2022-12-01
02-00 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-12-01
02-00 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2022-11-30
02-00 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Basically LGTM. There was one paragraph I found a little stilted, I provide some suggestions below. Take 'em or leave 'em, up to …
[Ballot comment]
Basically LGTM. There was one paragraph I found a little stilted, I provide some suggestions below. Take 'em or leave 'em, up to you.

While this sentence is grammatical, IMO it's a little denser to parse than it needs to be: "Concurrent to the growth of adoption of these standards to express and communicate sensitive data has been an increasing societal focus on privacy." Perhaps something like this instead? "As adoption of these standards to express and communicate sensitive data has grown, so too has an increasing societal focus on privacy." (Arguably "grown ... increasing" is redundant and "increasing" could be dropped but I don't think it hurts if you want to emphasize by repetition.)

For similar reasons maybe reword "Common privacy themes in identity solutions are user consent, minimal disclosure, and unlinkability." For example, "User consent, minimal disclosure, and unlinkability are common privacy themes in identity solutions."
2022-11-30
02-00 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-11-29
02-00 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2022-11-28
02-00 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-11-27
02-00 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-10-26
02-00 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-10-25
02-00 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2022-12-01 from 2013-04-25
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw from Sean Turner
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw WG action text was changed
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw WG review text was changed
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw WG review text was changed
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw State changed to Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review) from Draft Charter
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw Initial review time expires 2022-11-01
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw State changed to Draft Charter from Approved
2022-10-25
02-00 Roman Danyliw New version available: charter-ietf-jose-02-00.txt
2013-05-22
02 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-jose-02.txt
2013-05-22
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from IESG review
2013-05-22
02 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2013-05-22
01-06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-05-22
01-06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2013-05-22
01-06 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-05-22
01-06 Cindy Morgan New version to fix typo in third-to-last paragraph.
2013-05-22
01-06 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-06.txt
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON algorithm document to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.", due July 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON key format document to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.", due July 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON object encryption document to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.", due July 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON object integrity document to IESG for consideration as Standards Track document.", due July 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Start Working Group Last Call on JSON algorithm document.", due June 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Start Working Group Last Call on JSON key format document.", due June 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object encryption document.", due June 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Start Working Group Last Call on JSON object integrity document.", due June 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON algorithm document as a WG item.", due January 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON key format document as a WG item.", due January 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON object encryption document as a WG item.", due January 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit JSON object integrity document as a WG item.", due January 2012, from current group milestones
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-05-22
01-05 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-05-21
01-05 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Block
2013-05-21
01-05 Sean Turner New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-05.txt
2013-05-07
01-04 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] Position for Richard Barnes has been changed to Yes from Block
2013-05-07
01-04 Sean Turner New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-04.txt
2013-05-07
01-03 Sean Turner New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-03.txt
2013-04-25
01-02 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
My previous feedback (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-jose/ballot/329647/#benoit-claise) was not taken into account. So here it is again:

I always prefer to see the milestones, …
[Ballot comment]
My previous feedback (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-jose/ballot/329647/#benoit-claise) was not taken into account. So here it is again:

I always prefer to see the milestones, to understand how long the charter
completion could take, and to see the logical order of the document delivery.
However, I know that some people don't consider the milestones part of the
charter. Let's not redo the discussion here, but can you please order the
milestones in a logical order. For example, I guess that the following entry
should be number 1.
  (7) An Informational document detailing Use Cases and Requirements
  for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
2013-04-25
01-02 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-04-25
01-02 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-04-24
01-02 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-04-24
01-02 Richard Barnes
[Ballot block]
I support Pete's points on this.  One further point:

The proposed charter makes the following change to deliverable (1):
CURRENT: "integrity protection to …
[Ballot block]
I support Pete's points on this.  One further point:

The proposed charter makes the following change to deliverable (1):
CURRENT: "integrity protection to data, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures."
PROPOSED: "... integrity-protected data using JSON-based data structures, including (but not limited to) JSON data structures."
This appears to change the antecedent of the "including ..." clause to the metadata instead of the data.  I don't think this change is what the WG intended.  For example, it would not be acceptable for the group to work on an ASN.1 data structure that was somehow "JSON-based".

Proposed change:
OLD: "including (but not limited to) JSON data structures."
NEW: "where the data to be protected includes (but is not limited to) JSON data structures"
... in both (1) and (2)
2013-04-24
01-02 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-04-24
01-02 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying …
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying things for Barry in the process. So these are here for discussion purposes. If everyone thinks these changes make them happy too, then great.


OLD
  With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF
  and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services for
  JSON with encryption, digital signatures, and message authentication
  codes (MACs).
NEW
  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, digital signatures, and message authentication
  codes (MACs) using the JSON data format.

OLD
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to secure JSON-data,
NEW
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to encode security data in JSON
  format,

In (1) and (2), change "representing" to "specifying a representation of". The current text just doesn't make sense.
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick Ballot discuss text updated for Pete Resnick
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying …
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying things for Barry in the process. So these are here for discussion purposes. If everyone thinks these changes make them happy too, then great.


OLD
  With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF
  and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services for JSON
  with encryption, digital signatures, and message authentication codes
  (MACs).
NEW
  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, digital signatures, and message authentication
  codes (MACs) using the JSON data format.

OLD
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to secure JSON-data,
NEW
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to encode security data in JSON
  format,

In (1) and (2), change "representing" to "specifying a representation of". The current text just doesn't make sense.
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick Ballot discuss text updated for Pete Resnick
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying …
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying things for Barry in the process. So these are here for discussion purposes. If everyone thinks these changes make them happy too, then great.


OLD
  With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF
  and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services for JSON
  with encryption, digital signatures, and message authentication codes
  (MACs).
NEW
  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, digital signatures, and message authentication
    codes (MACs) using the JSON data format.

OLD
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to secure JSON-data,
NEW
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to encode security data in JSON
  format,

In (1) and (2), change "representing" to "specifying a representation of". The current text just doesn't make sense.
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick Ballot discuss text updated for Pete Resnick
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying …
[Ballot block]
I think some of the changes have de-clarified things for me. Below are my suggestions, but I don't want to end up de-clarifying things for Barry in the process. So these are here for discussion purposes. If everyone thinks these changes make them happy too, then great.


OLD
  With the increased usage of JSON in protocols in the IETF
  and elsewhere, there is now a desire to offer security services for JSON
  with encryption, digital signatures, and message authentication codes
  (MACs).
NEW
  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, digital signatures, and message authentication codes
  (MACs) using the JSON data format.

OLD
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to secure JSON-data,
NEW
  The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be
  used by applications to encode security data in JSON
  format,

In (1) and (2), change "representing" to "specifying a representation of". The current text just doesn't make sense.
2013-04-24
01-02 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-04-23
01-02 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-04-23
01-02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-04-23
01-02 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-04-23
01-02 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-04-23
01-02 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-04-23
01-02 Cindy Morgan Created "Approve" ballot
2013-04-23
01-02 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG review from External review
2013-04-16
01-02 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2013-04-25 from 2013-04-11
2013-04-16
01-02 Cindy Morgan State changed to External review from Internal review
2013-04-16
01-02 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-04-11
01-02 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-04-11
01-02 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
This was formerly a BLOCK, moved to a COMMENT:

> The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be used by
> …
[Ballot comment]
This was formerly a BLOCK, moved to a COMMENT:

> The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be used by
> applications to secure JSON-data, but it will be up to the
> application to fully specify the use of the WG's documents
> much the same way S/MIME is the application of CMS to
> MIME-based media types.

When I've asked App folks who are working on new JSON-based protocols and formats about JOSE, the feedback I've gotten is that they don't see the applicability of JOSE to their work.  It's possible that this is simply short-sightedness, but it disturbs me.  I'd like to have some assurance that there is some real communication between JOSE development and the target uses -- the JSON-based applications -- and that the needs of those targets are being fed into JOSE now, during the development cycle.

Part of this probably involves pushing items 7 and 8 up to the top, working on them actively -- with direct input from the target users -- before nailing down the details.

--- UPDATE for -01-02 ---
The following text was added in -01-02:
The WG will strive to gather use cases to ensure the broadest possible applicability of the mechanism.

That, in addition to discussion with the chairs, makes me happy that we will collectively connect with potential users and collect use cases, dispel myths, figure out who can and should make use of this, and sing "Kumbayah".
2013-04-11
01-02 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-04-11
01-02 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
I always prefer to see the milestones, to understand how long the charter completion could take, and to see the logical order of …
[Ballot comment]
I always prefer to see the milestones, to understand how long the charter completion could take, and to see the logical order of the document delivery.
However, I know that some people don't consider the milestones part of the charter. Let's not redo the discussion here, but can you please order the milestones in a logical order.
For example, I guess that the following entry should be number 1.
  (7) An Informational document detailing Use Cases and Requirements
  for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
2013-04-11
01-02 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2013-04-11
01-02 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
I always prefer to see the milestones, to understand how long the charter completion could take, and to see the logical order of …
[Ballot comment]
I always prefer to see the milestones, to understand how long the charter completion could take, and to see the logical order of the document delivery.
However, I know that some people don't consider the milestones part of the charter. Let's not redo the discussion here, but can you please order the milestones in a logical order.
For example, I guess that the following entry should be number 1.
  (7) An Informational document detailing Use Cases and Requirements for
  JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
2013-04-11
01-02 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-04-11
01-02 Sean Turner New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-02.txt
2013-04-11
01-01 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-04-10
01-01 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-04-10
01-01 Pete Resnick [Ballot comment]
I await with interest the outcome of Barry's first blocking point.
2013-04-10
01-01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-04-10
01-01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-04-10
01-01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-04-09
01-01 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-04-09
01-01 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-04-09
01-01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-04-08
01-01 Sean Turner New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-01.txt
2013-04-08
01-00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-04-05
01-00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-04-01
01-00 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD changed to Sean Turner
2013-03-31
01-00 Barry Leiba
[Ballot block]
I have two points:

1.
> The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be used by
> applications to secure JSON-data, …
[Ballot block]
I have two points:

1.
> The WG will develop a generic syntax that can be used by
> applications to secure JSON-data, but it will be up to the
> application to fully specify the use of the WG's documents
> much the same way S/MIME is the application of CMS to
> MIME-based media types.

When I've asked App folks who are working on new JSON-based protocols and formats about JOSE, the feedback I've gotten is that they don't see the applicability of JOSE to their work.  It's possible that this is simply short-sightedness, but it disturbs me.  I'd like to have some assurance that there is some real communication between JOSE development and the target uses -- the JSON-based applications -- and that the needs of those targets are being fed into JOSE now, during the development cycle.

Part of this probably involves pushing items 7 and 8 up to the top, working on them actively -- with direct input from the target users -- before nailing down the details.

2.
> (1) A Standards Track document or documents specifying how
> to apply JSON-structured integrity protection to data,
...
> (2) A Standards Track document or documents specifying how
> to apply a JSON-structured encryption to data,

I know this text is from the original charter, but I don't understand what "JSON-structured integrity protection" and "JSON-structured encryption" mean.  "JSON-structured data" makes sense.  But how does the adjective "JSON-structured" apply to the noun "encryption"?
2013-03-31
01-00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-03-25
01-00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-03-22
01-00 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-04-11
2013-03-22
01-00 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-03-22
01-00 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-03-22
01-00 Cindy Morgan Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2013-03-22
01-00 Cindy Morgan State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review
2013-03-22
01-00 Sean Turner State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved
2013-03-22
01-00 Sean Turner New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01-00.txt
2011-09-21
01 (System) New version available: charter-ietf-jose-01.txt