Re: [OAUTH-WG] [COSE] A draft on CBOR Web Tokens (CWT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 16 November 2015 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FED1A8972 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:32:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 TQlcSS7H6DHS for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 094FD1A896C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter19-d.gandi.net (mfilter19-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.147]) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB9EFB886; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:31:59 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter19-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.198]) by mfilter19-d.gandi.net (mfilter19-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H3jyGUxlnCI0; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:31:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 178.26.22.158
Received: from nar.local (ipb21a169e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [178.26.22.158]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E8A0FB87E; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:31:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <564A595B.5030905@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:31:55 +0100
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
References: <CAAP42hD2xsOGT5_iFQ2QZD5Om8Xkj0Z3vAFTk5ZhimM+Nf9X0Q@mail.gmail.com> <364007597.6139430.1447710892429.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <564A58CE.2040908@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <564A58CE.2040908@tzi.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/kf21T0pGASmpTTHK04R3Nx1qbHk>
Cc: "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [COSE] A draft on CBOR Web Tokens (CWT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:32:02 -0000

Bill Mills wrote:
> If there are structural differences in what CBOR can support it would be
> worthwhile to note that.  Examples of things supported in JWT that you
> can't do in CBOR could be very helpful to implementers.

Those don't exist, but there may be things you have to do in JSON that
you can (and want to) do in a better way in CBOR.

Grüße, Carsten