If you move from JSON to something that’s not JSON, you lose a whole lot of super-developer-friendly libraries and tooling, all very fully-debugged and performant; and you also lose interchange opportunities. So you should be really sure that you actually get a significant advantage in one or more of performance, code size, or data size.
I personally just haven’t seen the evidence that the binary-ness of a format guarantees really significant wins. Specifically, my experience is that time spent deserializing message formats into program data structures is often dominated by memory management code. I’m not saying that some sort of binary JSON-like message format is necessarily bad, but I am saying that the costs are significant, and you should insist on quantitative evidence of a win before you impose those costs on your community. On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:26 PM, John Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the outcomes (from a breakout session) of the recent W3C workshop > on the Web of Things (http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/) were that for > constrained devices, more lightweight alternatives to JSON are desired. > > It was discussed that one of the binary JSON formats (e.g. RFC7049 CBOR) > would be better alternatives for constrained devices using 802.15.4, and > that e2e secure binary JSON would be needed in some applications and > architectures. > > Is anyone aware of any work on securing binary JSON? > > John Mattsson > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > JOHN MATTSSON > MSc Engineering Physics, MSc Business Administration and Economics > Ericsson IETF Security Coordinator > Senior Researcher, Security > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > -- - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
