Subject: Re: [jose] Consensus calls

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:48:05 -0700

<chair>

I have not seen any objections to these resolutions.  The document editors
should therefore act on them.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jim
> Schaad
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [jose] Consensus calls
> 
> <chair>
> 
> The following "decisions" were made at the face to face meeting.  This
> message is to ratify these decisions on the list.  You have one week to
object
> and provide a solid defense of your objection or the actions will be
> considered as adopted.  Note that for some of these we are running
slightly
> ahead of our charter changes but this is not expected to be a problem
> 
> 1.  Adopt the proposed compromise language from John Bradley's
> presentation dealing with the critical language.  This is to adopt points
1, 2, 3
> and 4 but not point 5.  (presentation is available on the materials
website
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-jose-4.pdf).
> 
> 2.  The private fields of public/private key algorithms and the symmetric
key
> field are to be folded into the mail JWA draft.
> 
> 3. The multiple recipient/signer serialization drafts are to be folded
into the
> JWE and JWS drafts respectively.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose