This sounds like a fine idea to me. It saves space and makes the JSON format more human-readable. It actually makes kind of a nice analogy to ASN.1, namely use of OCTET STRING to encapsulate more DER content.
The compact serialization can continue to base64url-encode that field, so it would not be a breaking change for that serialization. --Richard On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > <no hat>**** > > ** ** > > I am trying to figure out if I am missing something. This is not yet a > formal proposal to actual change the document.**** > > ** ** > > I was thinking about proposing that we make a change to the content of the > protected field in the JWS JSON serialization format. If we encoded this > as a UTF8 string rather than the base64url encoded UTF8 string, then the > content would be smaller. The computation of the signature would be > unchanged in that it would still be computed over the base64url encoded > string. I believe that the conversion from the UTF8 string to the > base64url encoded UTF8 string is a deterministic encoding and thus would > not generate any problems from that point.**** > > ** ** > > At this point I and trying to figure out if I missed anything that would > preclude this from working. I am not worried about how hard or easy it > would be to do, just if it is even possible.**** > > ** ** > > Jim**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
