Re: [jose] Canonical JSON form

[Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, 20:37 David Waite <[e-mail] wrote:

> Not to be a jerk (I promise!), but is there documentation of the TEEP
> issues with using JWS/JWE structure?
>
> The existing specs seem to use JOSE as-is, I didn’t immediately see
> anything on the ML or in GitHub issues.
>

Correct.  Since the requirement was using standardized security solutions
but also maintaining a reasonable message structure, they didn't have any
option but adding a redundant layer like the TAInformation /
TAInformationTBS pair.

I was in a similar position having a bunch of systems to be converted from
XML to JSON.  Unlike TEEP, I had the freedom to select any working solution
which is the background to this work.



> It is difficult to fairly argue a specific desired solution to a
> non-disclosed problem set. Especially when so many people have battle scars
> from implementing that solution in the past.


Implementing, documenting and verifying this concept took quite some time
but apart from a math bug in .NET there were no surprises whatsoever.

The problem set is described, here is a short version:
- Keeping signed JSON in JSON format
- Enabling a consistent message structure regardless if messages are signed
or not
- Supporting signed JavaScript objects

Anders
https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs


>
> -DW
>
> > On Nov 18, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Anders Rundgren <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > There's no mystery going on here.  The TEEP folks needed Signed Data
> rather than Signature objects with embedded Data.
>
>