On Apr 9, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > 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”.) > 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)? Yes > > 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. Keep them separate - Id like to see fewer documents, but no need for mass extermination ;-) > > Opinions from the Working Group? > > Thanks, > -- Mike > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
