- From: Matt Saxon <matt.saxon@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:15:04 +0000
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>, "Ahuja, Sachin" <Sachin.Ahuja@mastercard.com>
So you are happy with the concepts, but you’d like a different encoding method for the signatures? What the view in this if we could/should support multiple approaches? Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Dec 2017, at 06:23, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2017-12-11 22:07, Matt Saxon wrote: >> Anders, >> I understand your point and it will be addressed when we get further into the proposal. >> At the moment, we are trying to get agreement to the principles, not the detailed encoding format. >> As you suggest we will need to address the encoding of signed data, but I don’t believe this interferes with the principles. > > Right. However, Base64Url-ecoding signed JSON data violently interferes with my "esthetics" :-) > > I'm not [at all] alone thinking that. > > JSON-LD Signatures by Manu Sporny and the credentials folks: > https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/ > > JCS (JSON Cleartext Signature) by yours truly, here presented in an on-line test/demo setup: > https://mobilepki.org/jcs/home > > These schemes are reusing parts of the JOSE stack but are actually quite different. > > Shameless plug: JCS builds on JWK + JWA + ES6 + "New Stuff". JCS only needs JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() for processing. In addition, JCS permits signatures to be expressed as JavaScript objects. > > Regards, > Anders > > >> Regards, >> Matt >> Sent from my iPhone >>> On 11 Dec 2017, at 18:51, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> com >
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:15:32 UTC