On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 23:40 +0200, John Bradley wrote: > Independent of the current implementations. I prefer the current > base64url encoding of the segments, it is harder for people to get > wrong. > > > I have sympathy for the constrained environment people who want BSON > (binary JSON). Having a compact binary representation probably makes > sense for those environments where you can safely transmit binary > objects. > > > I however think that alternate binary encodings are future work and > what we have meets the goal of driving adoption. > > > If size is the issue then you can always compress a jws on the wire > and expand it at the other end before validating the signature.
If size is an issue on the wire, then chances are that it is also an issue on the device, so just compressing and expanding may not be a good solution. Note that in a constrained environment even some of the processing devices have limited RAM memory and space for (decompression) libraries and such. I very much subscribe to your previous statement though: It's future work (but we shouldn't forget it). /Ludwig -- Ludwig Seitz, PhD SICS Swedish ICT AB Ideon Science Park Building Beta 2 Scheelevägen 17 SE-223 70 Lund Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51 http://www.sics.se
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
