- From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:32:44 -0800
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL02cgSWO854fRBCcEy-z5zLaWErYUnv7Ntfv7Q2FtR1Ndi20A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Anders Rundgren < anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2014-12-02 19:09, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> Human-readability is only a very minor part of the objectives here. >> Base64 deserialization is not a major issue. >> > > This departs from the thoughts behind JSON's predecessor, XML. > > Anyway, I'm sure many other organizations will use JSON clear-text > signatures > (home-brewed though since there is no such standard), particularly since > it has > been found out to be compliant with at least the browser parsers. That > this > is the case has a trivial explanation: > > Only a bad programmer would design a parser so it would output data > in a different order than it was supplied in, even if the "standard" > allowed that. > http://memedad.com/meme/343043 > > Anders > > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Anders Rundgren < >> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> On 2014-12-02 18:20, Richard Barnes wrote: >> >> When I wrote that, there was no flattened serialization. I'm >> currently revising to use JWS. >> >> >> So ACME will go from: >> >> { >> "type": "certificateRequest", >> "csr": "5jNudRx6Ye4HzKEqT5...__FS6aKdZeGsysoCo4H9P", >> "signature": { >> "alg": "RS256", >> "nonce": "h5aYpWVkq-xlJh6cpR-3cw", >> "sig": "KxITJ0rNlfDMAtfDr8eAw...__fSSoehDFNZKQKzTZPtQ", >> "jwk": { >> "kty":"RSA", >> "e":"AQAB", >> "n":"KxITJ0rNlfDMAtfDr8eAw...__fSSoehDFNZKQKzTZPtQ" >> } >> } >> } >> >> to: >> >> { >> "payload":"<payload contents>", >> "protected":"<integrity-__protected header contents>", >> "header":<non-integrity-__protected header contents>, >> "signature":"<signature contents>" >> } >> >> That's not so cool (you don't see what it is anymore...), not to >> mention how poorly >> it matches the JSON schema validation ACME seems to use. >> >> JSON Cleartext Signatures rocks :-) >> >> Anders >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Manu Sporny < >> msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com> <mailto: >> msporny@digitalbazaar.__com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>> wrote: >> >> Richard, >> >> Quick question for you re: ACME - why did you decide to not >> use the JWS >> base64-encoding mechanism in the signature for ACME? >> Particularly, >> you've specified multiple canonicalization mechanisms >> (signature-input). >> >> The reason I'm asking is because we're trying to get some >> insight into >> whether or not the base64-encoded approach should be used >> when digitally >> signing credentials in the Credentials Community Group, or >> if you >> suggest we specify our own canonicalization mechanism and >> re-use the JWS >> alg/nonce/sig fields? >> >> On 11/28/2014 09:04 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: >> > https://github.com/__letsencrypt/acme-spec/blob/__ >> master/draft-barnes-acme.md <https://github.com/ >> letsencrypt/acme-spec/blob/master/draft-barnes-acme.md> >> > >> > { >> > "type": "certificateRequest", >> > "csr": "5jNudRx6Ye4HzKEqT5...__FS6aKdZeGsysoCo4H9P", >> > "signature": { >> > "alg": "RS256", >> > "nonce": "h5aYpWVkq-xlJh6cpR-3cw", >> > "sig": "KxITJ0rNlfDMAtfDr8eAw...__ >> fSSoehDFNZKQKzTZPtQ", >> > "jwk": { >> > "kty":"RSA", >> > "e":"AQAB", >> > "n":"KxITJ0rNlfDMAtfDr8eAw...__fSSoehDFNZKQKzTZPtQ" >> > } >> > } >> > } >> >> -- manu >> >> -- >> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu >> Sporny) >> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments >> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/__dawn-of-web-payments/ < >> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 18:33:12 UTC