[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Discussion at F2F for the beyond-JSON issue
I think “HTTPS-1: make JSON support required, allow other serializations” may require more discussion. Given how long it was discussed in SC meetings I’m not sure it won’t some discussion in F2F. Is there a writeup of the proposed
solution on requiring JSON and is that wording in SLPF and/or in transport spec?
My concern is interworking and supplier lock-in. I think it’s possible (but haven’t seen the wording) to specify ‘require JSON’. I object to the ‘allow other serializations’ unless the wording
- specifies how interworking is accomplished (which was talked about but I haven’t seen text)
- which ones are optional and/or specify how to do supplier extensions
My concern is I believe it would be possible to create supplier solutions that would not interwork, would lock you in to that supplier, yet would be compliant. If we are going to allow XML serialization (which I am against) then
I think we should specify how to do that in it’s own spec with it’s own conformance to ensure interoperability. Ditto for any other serialization such as YAML, COAP, protobuf, vendor-proprietary, etc. Following the “keep it simple for now”, I think Version
1 should just be JSON - but I won’t object if we find wording that meets my two bullets above.
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting, LLC
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/
From: openc2-imple@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Dave Lemire <dave.lemire@g2-inc.com>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 10:50 AM To: openc2-imple@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [openc2-imple] Characterizing HTTPS Spec issues for the F2F
IC-SC Members
(this message is cross-posted to Slack #implementation; respond where ever you prefer).
Following Joe Brule's lead, I'm trying to bin up the HTTPS Specification comments for discussion at the F2F meeting. Here's my current proposed segregation into "not too controversial" and "need deeper discussion"; I'd like feedback on whether the SC members
believe any issue is in the wrong bin. Some discussion of these has taken place in IC-SC meetings on December 19th and January 2nd. I'm using theHTTPS
issue numbers in the CRM, with a quick summary label. Please follow the link to the CRM to access more more detail about the issues and review specific change proposals in pull requests.
Not Too Controversial
Require Deeper Discussion
Dave
OpenC2 Technical Committee Secretary OpenC2 Implementation Considerations SC Co-chair Contractor support to NSA Email: dave.lemire@g2-inc.com Office: 301-575-5190 / Mobile: 240-938-9350 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]