IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json-canon] [EXT] Re: Support for a WG

Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> Tue, 22 January 2019 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
X-Original-To: json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B63130F4C for <json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:47:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lookingglasscyber.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IgWxkniFn13h for <json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:47:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr700077.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.70.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF44D130F3C for <json-canon@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:47:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lookingglasscyber.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=9Ydyj0KIjd7aSYvB0WwuE39Laubtm+fL39ZBG6idReY=; b=gDOycyodBnXfpdyCmvZLIHAl7HaybMWy9Okqm36mJuJ2IKFhtZQ0uJ36fQpt7hqoL83sWQDRgisdKWwJurSGtfsYhyikKJwh0bpD/QvQe8inRxzKhRjc7S3as7Ng6f6NthPyRUtJNcP2CDhaPd0BsC6N0CFe+VICKU06Jq04MdI=
Received: from MW2PR18MB2137.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (52.132.182.156) by MW2PR18MB2105.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (52.132.182.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1537.29; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:47:25 +0000
Received: from MW2PR18MB2137.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::198d:2eea:38e4:3ecb]) by MW2PR18MB2137.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::198d:2eea:38e4:3ecb%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1537.031; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:47:25 +0000
From: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
To: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
CC: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "json-canon@ietf.org" <json-canon@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json-canon] [EXT] Re: Support for a WG
Thread-Index: AQHUsnDRMhgJqKLqakO77f4+MtbyCKW6+U+A
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:47:25 +0000
Message-ID: <866D8EB8-49F6-4353-B502-F3337ACDBF61@lookingglasscyber.com>
References: <38C84459-3D2E-4E78-BF48-FE277388E33A@contoso.com> <21415_1547794000_5C417650_21415_473_1_34A23FAA-C8F5-40E3-8358-FD42C5F78126@tzi.org> <60B977A0-0958-4DDF-A666-A44F074E5946@mitre.org> <E7B44CE8-CE81-4AB3-9665-12D1A52FD9C5@lookingglasscyber.com> <CAF2hCbYSDsPf6p56i1uhSBZZQv7jgLdCQGqHmsVi+nzbW3_46A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF2hCbYSDsPf6p56i1uhSBZZQv7jgLdCQGqHmsVi+nzbW3_46A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.15.0.190115
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=athomson@lookingglasscyber.com;
x-originating-ip: [69.181.82.213]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MW2PR18MB2105; 6:t7nymEbjFFYVDGUcZ2elkyKUbWe6SD9rlCjLQolG/H5VBdDt8NN+K/wvB0AL3azyknrngOzeBdmxyvdxrscjG2kzBu8DiLBMUMCP37Vw3KpYSV1Y0Kev8Tel+gIuTlUQWIVrlcV428V6KhO0A8LkUqPm/5jXulpZwqgQ3nPIzZN+RZh89tRPiJMERHf6oT8JAJIV1ppnkHQwNFFlPFgfP3+R9wHqeEl8dW8EBQGJNIfwcj5F4i6Aow7+BLPAUykwfiEeSwZ/bJGKhcL9Yi2QRj/Z+cfthqmcpyucxv3JP5Rpg1aVi+Jf/WJ4XMmnmL7e8WHSK09IBsfgVKuRYHexXjmxd9hFIY+yUNxQgvVv99exCfnzKxr/wnxCF2YeTWeWxeGcl+3QQSThgrY0nCcBVGxzGIQDwox93kY6rKouFJgQWXI7qsplywquk064pTzIG5OpqXJfZM/uyIsxnaIDBQ==; 5:BRXNnwWfyF49r85h2m7U7xf+XpLfnXBP/J3As19aFzMS4xz3EAd4jejc36+hm8bmRDCJAqs8F4duySbPPW7LxvW3dmvdCt2i4xUPYZusT4CWmbpMzeyoR3gGVjeEvj0tDCHG6Hnx4xXD4mubAUoLWPuaTXFf5xAjP4W8C/3qUz/hN1YjQjs0Zjpc+oHlfXhlNTPXO8yY3AcCM+Z9rfB/kQ==; 7:1H4RBed4MPnCno8CD4J7frARCCvFcm+xtolD7yz9VP6mVNIs3zHYpxpwkYVQ7UTRJGqvkmNdMZKVK3NP6jBVO1oBkqPwsPpgp+SrYvHdlaZRZVl/jAmjO+wBGxcRRyjEWAwSwbSN22UkekZVtxv8WQ==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2696378d-f70f-4c84-5338-08d6808949e2
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600109)(711020)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:MW2PR18MB2105;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MW2PR18MB2105:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MW2PR18MB2105F0EE822887A5A92B70F3DA980@MW2PR18MB2105.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0925081676
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(396003)(39850400004)(346002)(376002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(53546011)(99286004)(102836004)(606006)(26005)(186003)(93886005)(36756003)(33656002)(86362001)(83716004)(71200400001)(82746002)(106356001)(71190400001)(105586002)(6506007)(76176011)(68736007)(2616005)(53936002)(54896002)(6306002)(236005)(6116002)(6436002)(6512007)(446003)(2906002)(3846002)(6486002)(11346002)(256004)(478600001)(4326008)(486006)(14454004)(229853002)(476003)(966005)(25786009)(6246003)(6916009)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(316002)(54906003)(7736002)(58126008)(66066001)(97736004)(14444005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MW2PR18MB2105; H:MW2PR18MB2137.namprd18.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: lookingglasscyber.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: eLMc/G465AFFxRR9pTpIVJedVnAaDmNKQK7LvaIJHyBaxPXAebYpvzwuvmgGSBhNBDCq6cTkkx9xsy7r3k+IpVQvBi84UFC2bPKoF/3WHcYqzsxoIVYSlC1YYl3AgF+9bVeJ0E3mwnfF5melyO8PfcyHKlRBDt6M2yK/mvYUhhkWYB9XH2Gc8mLAfPoydvnkz5Xh/YZVREkXHtPtNjMm4yjAjxq3N9d4uRKrkUS39ulXDlVMX8YZTnaqt63yuRtIaVHN2aLEyNumwQcWhod0O+xtVKMwQVEedyM/8hGOh6SQ7Y6U840PW+NHETT2SB4mNwhecklYV5cVtNfeCNE/9rGwUeHGBj6GrJNPTAiVG5t1D55OIJjtJ5ZYg9oQZoXzSNnUxJsyEPDxLeXoTMRd0EkK5+cv54wUd/Bey/4uAPE=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_866D8EB849F64353B502F3337ACDBF61lookingglasscybercom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: lookingglasscyber.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2696378d-f70f-4c84-5338-08d6808949e2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jan 2019 16:47:25.7010 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 11622456-b9ab-4329-8602-bf364508a848
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW2PR18MB2105
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json-canon/oee7dR9vUV_UmqKs75hxjcOP7Ik>
Subject: Re: [Json-canon] [EXT] Re: Support for a WG
X-BeenThere: json-canon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Canonicalization <json-canon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json-canon>, <mailto:json-canon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/json-canon/>
List-Post: <mailto:json-canon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-canon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json-canon>, <mailto:json-canon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:47:32 -0000

I’m not sure how you can create a consistent hash value without considering how empty/optional fields in a JSON structure are treated consistently across implementations.

So if the same optional/empty fields exist from 2 different vendors/instances then do they end up with the same hash?

Allan

From: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 8:37 AM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "json-canon@ietf.org" <json-canon@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json-canon] [EXT] Re: Support for a WG

I do not think we should go into schemas, that is one of the things that makes XMLDigSig inconvenient. But instead keep to simple JSON stringifying with predictable result.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 16:19, Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com<mailto:athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>> wrote:
Particularly important in what Rich says is also is to ensure the same hash is created where those JSON objects have optional or empty/missing properties that are defined in the schema of the object.

Regards

Allan

On 1/22/19, 4:31 AM, "json-canon on behalf of Struse, Richard J." <json-canon-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:json-canon-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of rjs@mitre.org<mailto:rjs@mitre.org>> wrote:

    The use case is to enable other standards that use a JSON serialization to be able to count on two objects, each with the same contents, having the same hash value based on their representation in JSON.

    Does that help?

    On 1/18/19, 1:47 AM, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org<mailto:cabo@tzi.org>> wrote:

        On Jan 18, 2019, at 03:50, Struse, Richard J. <rjs@mitre.org<mailto:rjs@mitre.org>> wrote:
        >
        > A standardized deterministic canonicalization of JSON data streams is essential

        For what?

        I think we would all benefit if you could explain your use case.

        Grüße, Carsten



    --
    json-canon mailing list
    json-canon@ietf.org<mailto:json-canon@ietf.org>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json-canon


--
json-canon mailing list
json-canon@ietf.org<mailto:json-canon@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json-canon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email