On Aug 12, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: >> 2) While we'd like encourage the use of JOSE over ASN.1, it seems like > for >> backwards compatibility having some level of ASN.1 support would be useful >> and we *need* a format that allows key material (both private and >> public) to be exported. Folks seem to leaning towards ASN.1 as a default >> format in the low-level API, and having JWK as a format that can be built > on >> top of that in a possible high-level API. Would that be OK?
This is really interesting! The entire work on JSON signing and encryption was started since the Web and browser guys told us that there no way they would ever want to use ASN.1. Completely impossible - not compatible with the way how Web applications are developed these days, and so on. Now, they ask for ASN.1 support. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
