On Aug 3, 2011, at 15:13, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 14:35 -0600, Matt Miller wrote: >> On Aug 3, 2011, at 14:33, Thomas Hardjono wrote: >> >> > Paul, >> > >> > Looks good. >> > >> > Just my clarification, looking at 1) and 2) does it mean that the >> > resulting JOSE WG specifications can be applied to non-JSON data >> > structures? (I'm ok with this). >> >> Yes; at least one of the desired uses is to sign/encrypt XMPP stanzas! (-: >> > > For my edification, why would JOSE want to concern itself with > representations of other media types, rather than allowing other > transformations to deal with this? > > Put another way, if there were a method of encapsulating and encoding > non-JSON media types in a JSON structure, would JOSE seek to reinvent such a > thing, or merely defer to using it? >
I think there's real benefit to having JSON as the envelope, and serious problems forcing all other structures to encode/decode as JSON. At least for XMPP, a JSON representation can turn out to be larger than the original XML. I imagine there's other data formats this is the case. - m&m Matt Miller - <[email protected]> Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
