No disagreement. The main proposal here is to put JSON into the base specs. It's developer friendly, and compliant with the charter!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > I’ll note that these are nearly identical to the JSON Serialization > encodings already specified in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization-04 and > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization-04, > other than you’re precluding multiple recipients. The syntax:**** > > ** ** > > {"recipients":[**** > > {"header":"<header 1 contents>",**** > > "signature":"<signature 1 contents>"},**** > > ...**** > > {"header":"<header N contents>",**** > > "signature":"<signature N contents>"}],**** > > "payload":"<payload contents>"**** > > }**** > > ** ** > > really isn’t far from what you’re proposing below. It just has an array > of per-recipient header fields, since accommodating multiple recipients is > also a working group goal.**** > > ** ** > > Once the rechartering is done, we’ll have working group JSON serialization > specifications. It’s a separate question whether to combine the compact > and JSON serializations into the same document or to leave them separate. > The revised charter will allow us to do either.**** > > ** ** > > -- Mike**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Richard Barnes > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:29 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [jose] A modest proposal for JSON-izing JW***** > > ** ** > > Dear JOSE,**** > > ** ** > > tl;dr: Let's please add a simple JSON encoding to the base JW* specs.**** > > ** ** > > I've been complaining for a while that the JW* documents aren't JSON, and > that the JSON serialization documents are too complex (because of the > integrity check issues). So I thought it was about time that I made an > actual proposal for encoding the base JOSE object as JSON objects. The > approach would be essentially the same as in the JSON serialization > documents, except with a focus on single objects.**** > > ** ** > > JWE and JWS objects currently have the following form**** > > ** ** > > jws = header.data.signature**** > > jwe = header.key.iv.ciphertext.mac**** > > ** ** > > The JSON encoding of a JWE/JWS would just take each of these > Base64-encoded pieces and assign them a name in a JSON structure.**** > > ** ** > > jws = {**** > > "header": header,**** > > "data": data,**** > > "signature": signature**** > > }**** > > ** ** > > jwe = {**** > > "header": header,**** > > "key": key,**** > > "iv": iv,**** > > "data": ciphertext,**** > > "mac": mac**** > > }**** > > ** ** > > It seems to me that these encodings are simple enough that they could be > handled in a short section, in parallel to what I would call the "text > serialization" in the current documents. So I would like to propose that > they be added to the base JWE and JWS documents.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > --Richard**** >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
