Subject: [jose] compact/JSON serialization (was Re: #36: Algorithm "none" should be removed)

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:04:01 -0600

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Jim Schaad <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I think it would be a good idea if these concepts could not be mixed
> together.  How are other system implementers dealing with this possibility?
> Do you only handle the compact serialization and thus have not thought about
> it?

Yes, that's me and I suspect others too. I only deal with the compact
serialization and haven't thought about it.

It's a bit of a digression but, from my perspective, I do not foresee
ever having any applicable use cases for multiple singers so the JSON
JWS serialization is of no interest to me. Clearly this impacts my
view on the MTI issues filed recently and I

I can see a potential need, again from my perspective, for multiple
recipient encryption. However, I'd have needs for web safeness and
compactness so the JSON JWE serialization as is wouldn't cut it. For
web safeness, the JSON serialization could be encoded (maybe even with
a alg=none or 'plain' JOSE object!) but size would likely be an issue
that might dictate some alternative.

I realize the ship has already sailed but I'd rather see work on a
compact serialization for multiple recipient encryption rather than
any of the JSON serializations.

---

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:06:50 -0600

Ugh, I somehow forgot to finish a sentence in there. Sorry. I was
going to say that I support the MIT as it currently is of only the
compact serialization.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Brian Campbell
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose