Subject: [jose] Review of JWS/CT

From: Anders Rundgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:59:07 +0100

Thanx Bret,

The following feedback has been received to date:

1. An option for supporting other JSON canonicalization methods than JCS (RFC 8785).
2. Creating something equivalent to the JWS header element "b64" that would specify "jcs".

I'm personally not overly thrilled by anything that would require updates of JWS.

The idea behind the "jcs" attribute was to simplify usage but based on my experiences there are no problems creating easy-to-use JWS/CT APIs on top of existing JWS APIs.

Regarding alternative JSON canonicalization methods, this seems unlikely to happen without a radical update of ECMAScript.

Any other feedback?

If you want to take the spec. for a spin you may do that at: https://mobilepki.org/jws-ct

Regards,
Anders

On 2020-11-20 17:05, Bret Jordan wrote:
> All,
> 
> We have released 00 of our draft for using JWS with JCS. You can find it here:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jordan-jws-ct/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jordan-jws-ct/>
> 
> Abstract
> 
>     This document describes a method for extending the scope of the JSON
>     Web Signature (JWS) standard, called JWS/CT.  By combining the
>     detached mode of JWS with the JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS),
>     JWS/CT enables JSON objects to remain in the JSON format after being
>     signed (aka "Clear Text" signing).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Bret
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>