Re: [jose] Binary JSON Signing and Encryption

If you move from JSON to something that’s not JSON, you lose a whole lot of
super-developer-friendly libraries and tooling, all very fully-debugged and
performant; and you also lose interchange opportunities.  So you should be
really sure that you actually get a significant advantage in one or more of
performance, code size, or data size.

I personally just haven’t seen the evidence that the binary-ness of a
format guarantees really significant wins. Specifically, my experience is
that time spent deserializing message formats into program data structures
is often dominated by memory management code.  I’m not saying that some
sort of binary JSON-like message format is necessarily bad, but I am saying
that the costs are significant, and you should insist on quantitative
evidence of a win before you impose those costs on your community.

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:26 PM, John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> One of the outcomes (from a breakout session) of the recent W3C workshop
> on the Web of Things (http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/) were that for
> constrained devices, more lightweight alternatives to JSON are desired.
>
> It was discussed that one of the binary JSON formats (e.g. RFC7049 CBOR)
> would be better alternatives for constrained devices using 802.15.4, and
> that e2e secure binary JSON would be needed in some applications and
> architectures.
>
> Is anyone aware of any work on securing binary JSON?
>
> John Mattsson
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> JOHN MATTSSON
> MSc Engineering Physics, MSc Business Administration and Economics
> Ericsson IETF Security Coordinator
> Senior Researcher, Security
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>

-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)