Subject: Re: [jose] Suggestion for new term: JSON Web Object (JWO) or JSON Web Message (JWM)

From: "Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:45:27 -0700

> > After a bit of brain storming two favourites emerged:
> > 
> > JSON Web Object (JWO)
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > JSON Web Message (JWM).
> 
> 
> JWO and JWM are both missing the security angle, which is the primary reason for JOSE.
> 
> How about "JWsec", and I would call the spec "JSON Web Message Security Format".

Sounds good. I need to digest it a bit though :)

To me an ideal name is one that is meaningful, concise and can result in
a reasonably short acronym or abbreviation.

> I don't think we will need separate acronyms for specific modes once we have a nickname for the top-level structure. For instance, say "signed JWsec" and "encrypted JWsec", instead of JWS and JWE.

Yes, once we have a common name/acronym for these messages, there would
be less of a need to have the current set of acronyms (JWS, JWE, JWA,
JWK).

However, when we put "signed" etc in front of "JWsec" the phrase becomes
a bit awkward. An acronym that still makes sense when unrolled with an
adjective in front of it would fit better.

To illustrate - "signed JWsec" -> "signed JSON Web Message Security
Format".

How about having JWsec refer to the format and JWM refer to the
resulting messages?

We would then have:

* JSON Web Message (JWM) - A message that follows the JSON Web Message
Security Format (JWsec).

* signed JWM - signed JSON Web Message

* encrypted JWM - encrypted JSON Web Message

* plain/unprotected JWM - ...

* JWM key - ...

* JWM algorithm - ...

What do you guys think?

Vladimir