JSON does not specify the order of the fields, so any order is legal.  Per 
http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1 "An object is an unordered collection 
of zero or more name/value pairs, where a name is a string and a value is a 
string, number, boolean, null, object, or array.".

-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 6:09 AM
To: Mike Jones; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] JWS Signing Input Options initial working group draft

Hi Mike

The JWS JSON example at

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-01#section-4.2

shows elements in the wrong order, according to

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515#section-7.2.2

the 'payload' should go first...

thanks, Sergey

On 10/08/15 21:01, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi Mike
> Thanks for the clarification, indeed it all makes sense now (I would 
> like to think a bit more about JWT as JWS JSON, will send a separate 
> email if anything relevant comes to mind).
>
> Cheers, Sergey
> On 10/08/15 16:40, Mike Jones wrote:
>> Hi Sergey,
>>
>> Actually, the JWT restriction to only using the compact serialization 
>> is already in the JWT spec itself.  The last sentence of the first 
>> paragraph of the introduction at 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ftools
>> .ietf.org%2fhtml%2frfc7519%23section-1&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%4
>> 0microsoft.com%7cc0fa460926a84bb9ab2308d2aa29b0d7%7c72f988bf86f141af9
>> 1ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ntR%2fTNYZsAub8dOSyIKLN5%2blHNtKExYCzBj%2fT
>> M1T4QE%3d says "JWTs are always represented using the JWS Compact 
>> Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization".  The new text in the JWS 
>> Unsigned Payload Option spec just adds the restriction that JWTs are to 
>> continue to use RFC7515 as written - base64url encoding the JWT claims as 
>> they always have been - for interop purposes.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that other applications can't use JWS to sign 
>> detached unencoded JSON payloads with the "b64":false option using 
>> either JWS serialization.
>>
>> Does that address what you were thinking about or do you still have 
>> concerns?
>>
>>                 -- Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 2:39 AM
>> To: Mike Jones; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [jose] JWS Signing Input Options initial working group 
>> draft
>>
>> Hi, thanks for adding the JWS JSON (flattened serialization) example,
>>
>> I thought the earlier text was also clear about having to use the 
>> detached payloads in case of JWS Compact.
>>
>> Re the new JWT restriction.
>>
>> I know JWT is meant to be used primarily in OAuth2 contexts as a 
>> token or grant (or as one of token or grant property) representation 
>> and hence it is JWS Compact.
>>
>> But I wonder, should this particular text effectively block the 
>> possible future use of JWT in (JWS JSON) message payloads...
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>> On 10/08/15 05:21, Mike Jones wrote:
>>> You can't use an unencoded non-detached JSON payload using the JWS 
>>> Compact Serialization because it uses characters that aren't 
>>> URL-safe, such as "{".  For that reason, the spec now makes it clear 
>>> that JWTs cannot use the "b64":false option.
>>>
>>> You *can* use JSON payloads with the JWS JSON Serialization.  Any 
>>> double-quote characters in the JSON would have to be quoted - 
>>> typically using \" - so that the double-quotes don't terminate the 
>>> "payload" value.  See the new section 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftoo
>>> ls.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-01%23
>>> section-5&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c634a8171fb8
>>> 74a34dbe908d2a1678cfb%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=F
>>> dTmmqFjXX9LBw56a1%2bk2K3dPmhp89ZqEec%2bgbAcRZA%3d
>>> for more on character restrictions in unencoded payloads.
>>>
>>>                 -- Mike
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sergey 
>>> Beryozkin
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 3:01 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [jose] JWS Signing Input Options initial working group 
>>> draft
>>>
>>> Hi, can you please add an example showing a b64 header affecting JWS 
>>> JSON payload ? I can imagine how it will look like but it is good to 
>>> see an example that can be tested locally...
>>>
>>> Cheers, Sergey
>>> On 23/07/15 19:17, Mike Jones wrote:
>>>> The initial working group version of JWS Signing Input Options has 
>>>> been posted.  It contains no normative changes from
>>>> draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fself-issued.info%2f%3fp%3d1398&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=zQrvoO4fBOa1nUomMVoBT862ELgRpuIQ%2fBaV17ijH7Y%3d>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let the working group discussions begin!  I particularly call your 
>>>> attention to Martin Thomson's review at 
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww
>>>> .i
>>>> e
>>>> tf.org%2fmail-archive%2fweb%2fjose%2fcurrent%2fmsg05158.html%2c&dat
>>>> a=
>>>> 0
>>>> 1%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d294
>>>> d7
>>>> e
>>>> 6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2mVSuUk74d8ZGB9gxW
>>>> Ry b f%2bUz5pxOXmLiUcAqL%2bVvNk%3d Nat Sakimura's review at 
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww
>>>> .ietf.org%2fmail-archive%2fweb%2fjose%2fcurrent%2fmsg05189.html%2c&
>>>> data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a42493
>>>> 08d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=zdSucPmd5
>>>> z%2b5Q5Zi%2fB61FmoUn9bhxmvatIl3R9WOdhQ%3d
>>>> and Matias Woloski's review at
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww
>>>> .ietf.org%2fmail-archive%2fweb%2fjose%2fcurrent%2fmsg05191.html&dat
>>>> a=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d
>>>> 294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=raojbpPQjvnj
>>>> NDynLSzSydtnVe%2fnfmWvIRTD9oXoKqA%3d
>>>> to start things off.
>>>>
>>>> The specification is available at:
>>>>
>>>> *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ft
>>>> oo
>>>> l
>>>> s.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00&da
>>>> ta
>>>> =
>>>> 01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d29
>>>> 4d
>>>> 7
>>>> e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=B7CCBZSw%2f9mJ354
>>>> xj
>>>> 1
>>>> Vplr0CKN3KjSDXHeFuUbWYx%2fs%3d
>>>>
>>>> An HTML formatted version is also available at:
>>>>
>>>> *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fse
>>>> lf
>>>> -
>>>> issued.info%2fdocs%2fdraft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00.h
>>>> tm
>>>> l
>>>> &data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249
>>>> 30
>>>> 8
>>>> d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H0jHGZqOrts
>>>> xM
>>>> B
>>>> EY3W7lFx2agz8V54RDoALY%2bxcjWV0%3d
>>>>
>>>>                                                                -- 
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> P.S.  This note is also posted at
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fsel
>>>> f-issued.info%2f%3fp%3d1432&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsof
>>>> t.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c
>>>> d011db47%7c1&sdata=Ehd0PdoNA2rZx9b%2bTrPOgO5G2Nxkp1FutbTnL7cD9dg%3d
>>>> and as @selfissued
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fselfissued&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40microsoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=54dOa%2fD75zbVVpfbjYFAq4yL9zmJ7q9p2qIbJRY%2flIA%3d>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jose mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>> i
>>>> etf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fjose&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40
>>>> mi
>>>> c
>>>> rosoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91a
>>>> b2
>>>> d
>>>> 7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=fOZrXA8pnh4Z5XsMQw5ro6Fc0%2bECj%2bKjeEziSJ5V5x
>>>> M%
>>>> 3
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jose mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
>>> .i 
>>> etf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fjose&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.jones%40m
>>> ic 
>>> rosoft.com%7cf40ec174fcc442a4249308d294d7e6e0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab
>>> 2d
>>> 7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=fOZrXA8pnh4Z5XsMQw5ro6Fc0%2bECj%2bKjeEziSJ5V5xM
>>> %3
>>> d
>>>
>>
>
>


--
Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcoders.talend.com%2f&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cc0fa460926a84bb9ab2308d2aa29b0d7%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=dGSc1zm0PKO21SYGNF%2b1l38fV3B1R7W%2f7g5efuJuzpQ%3d

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

Reply via email to