Thanx Bret,

The following feedback has been received to date:

1. An option for supporting other JSON canonicalization methods than JCS (RFC 
8785).
2. Creating something equivalent to the JWS header element "b64" that would specify 
"jcs".

I'm personally not overly thrilled by anything that would require updates of 
JWS.

The idea behind the "jcs" attribute was to simplify usage but based on my 
experiences there are no problems creating easy-to-use JWS/CT APIs on top of existing JWS 
APIs.

Regarding alternative JSON canonicalization methods, this seems unlikely to 
happen without a radical update of ECMAScript.

Any other feedback?

If you want to take the spec. for a spin you may do that at: 
https://mobilepki.org/jws-ct

Regards,
Anders

On 2020-11-20 17:05, Bret Jordan wrote:
All,

We have released 00 of our draft for using JWS with JCS. You can find it here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jordan-jws-ct/ 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jordan-jws-ct/>

Abstract

    This document describes a method for extending the scope of the JSON
    Web Signature (JWS) standard, called JWS/CT.  By combining the
    detached mode of JWS with the JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS),
    JWS/CT enables JSON objects to remain in the JSON format after being
    signed (aka "Clear Text" signing).



Thanks
Bret



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


_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
  • [jose] JWS/CT Bret Jordan
    • [jose] Review of JWS/CT Anders Rundgren

Reply via email to