Re: [jose] A modest proposal for JSON-izing JW*

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

I'll note that these are nearly identical to the JSON Serialization encodings already specified in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization-04 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-jose-jwe-json-serialization-04, other than you're precluding multiple recipients.  The syntax:

     {"recipients":[
       {"header":"<header 1 contents>",
        "signature":"<signature 1 contents>"},
       ...
       {"header":"<header N contents>",
        "signature":"<signature N contents>"}],
      "payload":"<payload contents>"
     }

really isn't far from what you're proposing below.  It just has an array of per-recipient header fields, since accommodating multiple recipients is also a working group goal.

Once the rechartering is done, we'll have working group JSON serialization specifications.  It's a separate question whether to combine the compact and JSON serializations into the same document or to leave them separate.  The revised charter will allow us to do either.

                                                            -- Mike

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:29 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [jose] A modest proposal for JSON-izing JW*

Dear JOSE,

tl;dr: Let's please add a simple JSON encoding to the base JW* specs.

I've been complaining for a while that the JW* documents aren't JSON, and that the JSON serialization documents are too complex (because of the integrity check issues).  So I thought it was about time that I made an actual proposal for encoding the base JOSE object as JSON objects.  The approach would be essentially the same as in the JSON serialization documents, except with a focus on single objects.

JWE and JWS objects currently have the following form

jws = header.data.signature
jwe = header.key.iv.ciphertext.mac

The JSON encoding of a JWE/JWS would just take each of these Base64-encoded pieces and assign them a name in a JSON structure.

jws = {
    "header": header,
    "data": data,
    "signature": signature
}

jwe = {
    "header": header,
    "key": key,
    "iv": iv,
    "data": ciphertext,
    "mac": mac
}

It seems to me that these encodings are simple enough that they could be handled in a short section, in parallel to what I would call the "text serialization" in the current documents.  So I would like to propose that they be added to the base JWE and JWS documents.

Thanks,
--Richard