IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Json] Canonicalization vs. comparison

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 February 2013 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753A321F882F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:19:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k6fJ1Vr+tKh0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEA821F8815 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1K2JMMc058793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:19:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBAyc1CcaH1_yyg8AQ9=SM6Tn7+1mbtQL+b9910ojuvbqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:19:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E8265A01-CEA7-40C0-B332-FE6FEA1E98B6@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411513E818@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F897263@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11507579808@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <1F2DF9AD-EE7A-4CC6-BBA6-AF07D02347F9@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOhkSdi_4kuM3SG2N=bcfAwE-3E9+_SWW8ULSfedO8HAkQ@mail.gmail.com> <2510D743-1CCE-42D0-9067-836F03BDD606@vpnc.org> <CALcybBDfyDGh-Gt9v-94OBM7XFzzSwywZJW_fECuig6hrN0cCw@mail.gmail.com> <1361323974.9790.41.camel@pbryan-wsl.internal.salesforce.com> <CALcybBAkJg1JyMwPc-xsCv_GvROPE696-4ak8YqaO2vXcQ+QHA@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBAyc1CcaH1_yyg8AQ9=SM6Tn7+1mbtQL+b9910ojuvbqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: [Json] Canonicalization vs. comparison
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:19:24 -0000

I was careful to call the document in my straw man "comparison" because that is what is needed. Canonicalization is a step before comparison. It is not needed at any other time.

I propose that we let the people who care most about signature comparison, the JOSE WG, deal with whether or not they need a canonicalization method. If they do, they can ask us; if they don't, we will have saved a huge amount of time.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email