On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:58 , Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 5, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > >> I'm still going to hold out for inclusion of the third document or >> capability needed for end-to-end JSON-based signing and encryption: >> >> 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to represent public keys as >> JSON data structures. >> >> I know, for instance that the JSON Web Signature (JWS) doc needs to contain >> a reference to the JSON Web Key (JWK) format, so that also needs to be >> defined. > > The question is what is the value of defining it in this WG. Why is the key > format important for interoperability with the signing and encrypting specs? > If we have a strong answer for that, the ADs might be more amenable to adding > it; otherwise, it probably falls into the "might be nice to have in the > future" category. >
I agree with Mike Jones. Without a common key format, distributing keys becomes much more difficult, which makes implementation and deployment much more difficult. - 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
