On Aug 4, 2011, at 07:38, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Since we are doing encryption as well, there are two problems needing a 
> common solution. 
> 
> 
> Let us say we are encrypting a blob of data - 200K or so. Do we really want 
> to have a JSON structure with the data blob JSON encoded?
> 
> For that and for the signing case I think we are going to want a structure 
> that is something like:
> 
> Package
>     [Type=JSON Length=203 bytes]
>         <Encryption stuff>
>     [ID=2as9uas9u9 Length=293939933 bytes]
>         <Binary blob> 
>    
> Ascii encoding for control data is good, it helps debugging etc. But Ascii 
> encoding JPEG bytes does not really help me much.
> 
> The package could even be as simple as a JSON control block that gives the 
> length of a data blob that is to follow immediately.
> 
> 

We need to be *VERY* careful if the data ends up outside of the envelope.  
There are lots and lots of use cases where the data to be transferred is 
somewhat small (<1k), and there isn't a good mechanism for holding onto that 
outside data.

We can't make the assumption that the only transport is HTTP!


- m&m

Matt Miller - <[email protected]>
Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc.


> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:25 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:
> XPath is NOT the way to go.  No argument from me.
> 
> The JWS spec has admittedly been focused on allowing JSON to be used as 
> tokens for OAuth and openID.
> 
> Those need to be passed around in a URL safe way,  so we need a serialization 
> that supports that.
> 
> In Quebec we did touch on alternate serializations that may be more suitable 
> for other use cases.
> 
> I suspect that signing a manifest/reference is something we should be able to 
> support in the JOSE spec.  
> 
> Finding the best way to accommodate they without complicating the simpler 
> cases is something that should be explored.
> 
> John B.
> 
> On 2011-08-04, at 9:03 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In the JWS/JWE drafts the goal was to provide JSON envelopes for base64url 
>> encoded blobs.
>> 
>> In most cased we intend for those to be JSON, but nothing prevents this from 
>> being used with XML similar to the failed SAML simple sign.
>> 
>> With JSON payloads we really wanted to avoid touching the payload.  
>> Inserting elements, canonicalization  and other things that touch the 
>> payload are highly problematic.
>> 
>> I really want to avoid C18N as well. The problem is how to do it.
>> 
>> If the data object is small it is no big deal base64 encoding it and storing 
>> it as an attribute.
>> 
>> But if the data object is larger (XML document, image, etc.) then some form 
>> of indirection is going to be necessary. For example take the digest of the 
>> data and sign that or if multiple objects are involved some sort of manifest 
>> scheme.
>> 
>> 
>> I really don't want to have to BASE64 a multimedia stream. So I think I am 
>> going to need some MIME like packaging scheme that allows us to send a JSON 
>> structure with attachments. I think that is going to be a very common 
>> requirement for others as well and I would like that to be a part of the 
>> standards toolkit rather than have to re-invent it for each protocol. 
>> 
>> 
>> Another very common corner case that is related is how to take a standard 
>> data object such as a JPEG, sign it and then attach the signature inside the 
>> data object. 
>> 
>> The blunder committed in XML Signature was to use XPath for that which 
>> introduced a mechanism for arbitrary transformations - yuk!
>> 
>> I really don't want to specify the precise means of embedding signatures in 
>> various media types but I certainly need an approach that makes it possible 
>> to use the spec as a basis for doing that. 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

Reply via email to