Subject: Re: [jose] JOSE WG request from W3C WebCrypto API

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:17:30 +0300

Axel, the 'they' refers to the W3C group. I am not part of the group and therefore have no insight in their decision making process nor in the reasons for the decisions. That's the problem with closed groups...

Sent from my Windows Phone

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Axel Nennker
Sent: 8/14/2012 3:52 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig; [email-masked]
Cc: Axel Nennker
Subject: Re: [jose] JOSE WG request from W3C WebCrypto API

There are two or more "they"...
 
ASN.1 should never be MTI in JOSE nor WebCrypto. It is ok to use as a blob maybe but when either WG specifies something that requires ASN.1 parsing then we are on the wrong track I think.

Am 13.08.2012 18:30 schrieb "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>:

On Aug 12, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
 
>>  2) While we'd like encourage the use of JOSE over ASN.1, it seems like
 > for
 >> backwards compatibility having some level of ASN.1 support would be useful
 >> and we *need* a format that allows key material (both private and
 >> public) to be exported. Folks seem to leaning towards ASN.1 as a default
 >> format in the low-level API, and having JWK as a format that can be built
 > on
 >> top of that in a possible high-level API. Would that be OK?

This is really interesting!
 
The entire work on JSON signing and encryption was started since the Web and browser guys told us that there no way they would ever want to use ASN.1. Completely impossible - not compatible with the way how Web applications are developed these days, and so on.

Now, they ask for ASN.1 support.

_______________________________________________
 jose mailing list
 [email-masked]
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose