IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teep] JSON/JOSE vs. CBOR/COSE

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 20 February 2020 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: teep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8554912004A for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:21:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.501
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 97hTr_iOLQC6 for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF5AC12001A for <teep@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (x59cc829e.dyn.telefonica.de [89.204.130.158]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E1C1F458; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:21:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6CD6B1A3B6D; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:21:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
cc: "teep@ietf.org" <teep@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <AM6PR08MB37181998F4E68A7F6BCC8110FA130@AM6PR08MB3718.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM6PR08MB37181998F4E68A7F6BCC8110FA130@AM6PR08MB3718.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> message dated "Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:16:27 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <23914.1582201286@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/GQ6fBeP6MfRMfgUByws6a-vfVYQ>
Subject: Re: [Teep] JSON/JOSE vs. CBOR/COSE
X-BeenThere: teep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A Protocol for Dynamic Trusted Execution Environment Enablement <teep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teep>, <mailto:teep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teep/>
List-Post: <mailto:teep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teep>, <mailto:teep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:21:42 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote:
    > Hi all,

    > With the impression from the Hackathon in mind I am wondering whether
    > we should make a decision about the encoding of the TEEP protocol
    > messages. Today, the spec allows two types of encodings, namely JSON
    > and CBOR (with their security mechanisms).

    > It is obviously a pain to implement both encodings. The spec supports
    > two encodings because the OTrP design was based on JSON / JOSE and it
    > felt logical to "inherit" this encoding. Then, we added CBOR and COSE
    > for use with constrained devices.

    > I believe we should only have one encoding.

    > CBOR and COSE appear to be the better choice (although I have been

I also agree.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email