Subject: Re: [jose] More compact format

From: Hal Lockhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 08:53:40 -0700 (PDT)

I am not speaking for or against this idea,  but just noting that historically efforts like this covering a variety of network technologies over the last 20 years or so have usually seen network or hardware improvements make the requirements go away before the standard is complete.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ludwig Seitz [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [jose] More compact format
> 
> On 08/29/2013 07:33 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, I encoded an example JWS object using a notional
> > serialization based on CBOR [1][2].  If you use a lightly optimized
> > format (cbor([unprotected, protected, payload, signature])), then you
> > actually end up being around 33% smaller than the compact
> > representation, around 10% smaller after base64url-encoding the CBOR.
> >   And if you don't support protected headers (and there's direct
> > signing), you don't need a base64 encoder/decoder because CBOR
> > supports octet strings natively.  Full results below.
> >
> > Just sayin'.
> >
> > --Richard
> 
> 
> Would there be interest in the WG (and would the charter cover this) to
> work on a constrained devices profile of JWS/JWE ?
> 
> 
> /Ludwig
> 
> 
> --
> Ludwig Seitz, PhD
> SICS Swedish ICT AB
> Ideon Science Park
> Building Beta 2
> Scheelevägen 17
> SE-223 70 Lund
> 
> Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
> http://www.sics.se
>