W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > May 2017

RE: AW: [wot-ig/wg] minutes - 26 April 2017

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:47 UTC