Re: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)

Agreed compressing and expanding on constrained devices is not ideal. 

Though I understand people are doing that in some cases to fit in a single packet.  Doing a good job for those environments is however future work and probably requires BSON or some other extension. 

John B. 
Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-06-13, at 9:37 AM, Ludwig Seitz <ludwig@sics.se> wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 23:40 +0200, John Bradley wrote:
>> Independent of the current implementations.   I prefer the current
>> base64url encoding of the segments, it is harder for people to get
>> wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> I have sympathy for the constrained environment people who want BSON
>> (binary JSON).   Having a compact binary representation probably makes
>> sense for those environments where you can safely transmit binary
>> objects.   
>> 
>> 
>> I however think that alternate binary encodings are future work and
>> what we have meets the goal of driving adoption.
>> 
>> 
>> If size is the issue then you can always compress a jws on the wire
>> and expand it at the other end before validating the signature.
> 
> If size is an issue on the wire, then chances are that it is also an
> issue on the device, so just compressing and expanding may not be a good
> solution. Note that in a constrained environment even some of the
> processing devices have limited RAM memory and space for (decompression)
> libraries and such.
> 
> I very much subscribe to your previous statement though: It's future
> work (but we shouldn't forget it).
> 
> 
> /Ludwig
> 
> -- 
> Ludwig Seitz, PhD
> SICS Swedish ICT AB
> Ideon Science Park
> Building Beta 2 
> Scheelevägen 17 
> SE-223 70 Lund
> 
> Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
> http://www.sics.se
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Re: [jose] #23: Make crypto independent of binary encoding (base64)

Attachment: smime.p7s