- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 09:09:48 -0400
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 05/19/2017 02:07 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: > If the intention is that LDS (Linked Data Signature) is going to be > W3C's primary JSON signature scheme That's not the intent. The intent is for LDS to be useful to a subset of developers that find the features it provides compelling. > I believe you have a rather long way to go: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017May/0039.html Response here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017May/0045.html > https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/ld-signatures/issues/5 Response here: https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/ld-signatures/issues/5#issuecomment-302695886 > https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/lds-rsa2017/issues/1 Response here: https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/lds-rsa2017/issues/1#issuecomment-299969626 > Personally I find it a bit odd mixing stuff that are based on > entirely different assumptions. JOSE is based on that > canonicalization is not available while Linked Data Signatures is > based on that it is. We're re-using detached signatures in JWS, which has no expectation that canonicalization is or is not performed. In fact, it specifically puts that question out of scope. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
Received on Friday, 19 May 2017 13:10:16 UTC