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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

No disagreement. The main proposal here is to put JSON into the base specs.
It's developer friendly, and compliant with the charter!


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]>wrote:

>  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****
>