- From: Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:00:43 +0000
- To: "ashimura@w3.org" <ashimura@w3.org>, "peter@filament.com" <peter@filament.com>, "public-wot-wg@w3.org" <public-wot-wg@w3.org>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "Peintner, Daniel" <daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com>
- Message-ID: <4EBB3DDD0FBF694CA2A87838DF129B3C01B81F87@DEFTHW99EL4MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Hi Peter How does your work relate to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-04? (Since you mentioned JWT is your main use case.) For the more general case, I am a bit confused about giving JSCN the status of a new format. Isn't it more like best practices how to use CBOR correctly? Kind regards Matthias Sent from my phone, limitations might apply. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament [peter@filament.com] Received: Tuesday, 02 May 2017, 22:26 To: Peintner, Daniel (ext) (CT RDA NEC EMB-DE) [daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com]; Kazuyuki Ashimura [ashimura@w3.org]; Public Web of Things IG [public-wot-ig@w3.org]; public-wot-wg@w3.org [public-wot-wg@w3.org] Subject: Re: AW: [wot-ig/wg] minutes - 26 April 2017 Yes, there are many factors and multiple tradeoffs. A major focus for JSCN is the ability to properly handle JWTs in a lossless way. For non-security use cases, CBOR itself is close to ideal. Peter On 5/2/17 6:29 AM, Peintner, Daniel wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thank for your pointer. > > JSCN (ore respectively CBOR) is definitely one candidate. > > Having said that, there are other formats we might want to look at > (Smile, EXI4JSON, ...). > > I looked at results/examples referenced in JSCN [1] which show JSON (318 > bytes) to JSCN (187 bytes). I checked EXI4JSON which gets down to 139 > bytes (see demo at [2]). > > So size is one aspect but there are many more aspects we should take > into account. > > -- Daniel > > [1] > https://quartzjer.github.io/JSCN/draft-miller-json-constrained-notation-00.html#rfc.section.6 > [2] http://exificient.github.io/javascript/demo/processJSON.html > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Von:* Peter Saint-Andre - Filament [peter@filament.com] > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 27. April 2017 23:16 > *An:* Kazuyuki Ashimura; Public Web of Things IG; public-wot-wg@w3.org > *Betreff:* Re: [wot-ig/wg] minutes - 26 April 2017 > > On 4/27/17 1:40 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote: > > <snip/> > >> should start activity to look at concise descriptions for TD > > Regarding concise descriptions, you might want to look at some work my > colleague Jeremie Miller is doing on JSON Constrained Notation: > > https://github.com/quartzjer/JSCN > > We're intending to begin standardization of this soon. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://filament.com/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 21:01:23 UTC