Re: [jose] Open Issue for WG Discussion: Disposition of JSON Serialization Functionality

[Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:41 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Inline
> On 2012-04-09, at 1:25 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

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

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?
>
>
>
> Create WG documents separate from the  JWS and JWE and consider merging them
> later after some more maturity.

+1

>
> John B.
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en