You'll recall that I created JSON Serialization drafts in response to WG input 
that use the same cryptographic operations as JWS and JWE, but that serialize 
the results into a JSON objects, rather than base64url encoded values separated 
by periods.  These representations also enable multiple signatures/HMACs to be 
used and content to be encrypted to multiple recipients.  The current versions 
of these drafts are:

*        
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-signature-json-serialization-01

*        
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-encryption-json-serialization-01

It was decided in Paris that the disposition of this functionality should be 
discussed by the WG on the list.  I think the questions we need to decide are:

1.  Is the working group interested in pursuing this functionality?  (Evidence 
to date is that the answer to this question is "yes".)

2.  If the answer to (1) is "yes", would the working group like to have this 
functionality be in working group documents at this time (rather than being 
described in individual submissions, as at present)?

3.  If the answer to (2) is "yes", should working group -00 versions of the 
JSON Serialization documents be created or should this functionality be folded 
into the existing JWS and JWE specs?

Arguments for keeping this functionality separate for now are:
  - Different level of maturity:  I'm aware of over a dozen implementations of 
JWS a few of JWE, but I know of no implementations of JWS-JS or JWE-JS.  
There's an argument that we should keep this new functionality separate until 
we have "rough consensus and running code".
  - Document simplicity for the Compact Serialization use case.  Not describing 
a second serialization in the JWS and JWE documents makes the documents 
somewhat easier to read if all the implementer needs is the Compact 
Serialization.

Arguments for merging it in now are:
  - Fewer documents needed to provide comprehensive treatment of the material.

Opinions from the Working Group?

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

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

Reply via email to