We already have it in a separate pair of drafts that are ready for submission
as working group drafts once the rechartering is complete. That was what the
working group decided in Atlanta to have happen. And as I understand it, the
rechartering probably won’t take much longer.
What’s most developer-friendly depends upon the developer’s use cases. If
they’re only using the compact serialization (which for instance, Mozilla
Persona, OpenID Connect, and I believe Dick Hardt’s application all do),
they’re more developer-friendly without also making the developer skip the
parts about the JSON serialization. If they’re using the JSON serialization,
then yes, combining them would be more friendly for those developers.
As I’d said in a private thread with Richard, I’m fine with the working group
deciding either to combine or not combine them. But given that the different
choices make things easier/harder for different sets of developers, I believe
that any decision to combine them should be well-discussed by the working group
first, and not just done on a whim.
-- Mike
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:27 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Richard Barnes; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] A modest proposal for JSON-izing JW*
Why don't we address the issue right away (as Richard proposed) instead of
postponing it to yet another draft?
Hannes
Sent from my ASUS Pad
Mike Jones <[email protected]<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:29 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[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
