Agreed compressing and expanding on constrained devices is not ideal. Though I understand people are doing that in some cases to fit in a single packet. Doing a good job for those environments is however future work and probably requires BSON or some other extension.
John B. Sent from my iPhone On 2013-06-13, at 9:37 AM, Ludwig Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
