On 2018-12-07 19:25, Bret Jordan wrote:
Thanks for the test data. Are you going to request a side meeting for Prague?

That's a good question. Since few have read the existing (somewhat 
constrained), serialization-only proposal [1], I'm considering other 
alternatives [4,5]

As you know REST [2] is currently held as the only "real" way architecting Web 
applications.  In spite of that, there is no standard for signing REST requests but 
signed REST requests are still used in the wild including by Amazon [3].

A rebooted JSON WG would likely settle on a full-fledged counterpart to XML's 
"CN14" which I have no interest in because it presumes that the 
canonicalization process is schema driven for both parsing and serialization, making 
deployment much more complex.

Anyway, IF there actually is GENUINE interest in a BoF session in Prague, could 
you guys on the list indicate your interest?

Thanx,
Anders

1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-01

2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer

3] 
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/sigv4-create-canonical-request.html

4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/

5] Ignoring the standards process and rather let associated applications like 
https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/two-visions-4-mobile-payments.pdf set a 
de-facto standard.




Bret

Sent from my Commodore 128D

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

On Dec 7, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Anders Rundgren <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Since XML Canonicalization has a reputation of not only being brittle but also 
terribly slow, I tested JCS [1] with the following JSON file:
{
  "1": {"f": {"f": "hi","F": 5} ,"\n": 56.0},
  "10": { },
  "": "empty",
  "a": { },
  "111": [ {"e": "yes","E": "no" } ],
  "A": { }
}

Expected output: 
{"":"empty","1":{"\n":56,"f":{"F":5,"f":"hi"}},"10":{},"111":[{"E":"no","e":"yes"}],"A":{},"a":{}}

Since JCS only is a serialization concept (parsing is unaffected), I compared 
the execution speed of standard serialization versus canonicalized 
serialization.

Using https://www.npmjs.com/package/canonicalize the performance penalty was 
about 2.4 compared to JSON.stringify().
Using my homegrown JSON tools written in Java having an integrated 
"canonicalize" serializer option the performance penalty was about 1.4

Anders

1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-01

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to