W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > December 2017

Re: [Agenda] Tokenization task force call on 12 December

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:23:48 +0100
To: Matt Saxon <matt.saxon@gmail.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>, "Ahuja, Sachin" <Sachin.Ahuja@mastercard.com>
Message-ID: <00ff61a0-ebc5-f804-46c1-398da9973395@gmail.com>
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:

JCS (JSON Cleartext Signature) by yours truly, here presented in an on-line test/demo setup:

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,
> Matt
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 11 Dec 2017, at 18:51, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>> com
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 06:24:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:28 UTC