- 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>
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 Tuesday, 12 December 2017 06:24:19 UTC