Re: [jose] JOSE WG request from W3C WebCrypto API

["Jim Schaad" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:30 AM
> To: Jim Schaad
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; 'Harry Halpin'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [jose] JOSE WG request from W3C WebCrypto API
> 
> 
> On Aug 12, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> 
> >>  2) While we'd like encourage the use of JOSE over ASN.1, it seems
> >> like
> > for
> >> backwards compatibility having some level of ASN.1 support would be
> >> useful and we *need* a format that allows key material (both private
> >> and
> >> public) to be exported. Folks seem to leaning towards ASN.1 as a
> >> default format in the low-level API, and having JWK as a format that
> >> can be built
> > on
> >> top of that in a possible high-level API. Would that be OK?
> 
> 
> This is really interesting!
> 
> The entire work on JSON signing and encryption was started since the Web
> and browser guys told us that there no way they would ever want to use
> ASN.1. Completely impossible - not compatible with the way how Web
> applications are developed these days, and so on.
> 
> 
> Now, they ask for ASN.1 support.

I think this may be a simple case of - all of the low level crypto libraries
that they might link to all support ASN.1 for dealing with asymmetric keys
and they are trying to avoid doing the conversion to JOSE for that work.
The other question is if we should just use ASN.1 for key formats in JOSE
rather than the JSON version if they are going to go with ASN.1 anyway.

Jim