Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename to "did-jose" #170

Open
oed opened this issue May 18, 2021 · 10 comments
Open

Rename to "did-jose" #170

oed opened this issue May 18, 2021 · 10 comments
Labels
pinned a known issue or feature that should not be closed by bots

Comments

@oed
Copy link
Contributor

oed commented May 18, 2021

This package now contains many things related to the JOSE spec. We should modularize it to a few different (to be determined) packages.

Suggestion:

  • @did-jose/jws
  • @did-jose/jwe
  • @did-jose/jwt
  • @did-jose/jwt-vc
  • @did-jose/signing-*
  • @did-jose/encryption-*
@oed oed changed the title Rename this repo to "did-jose" Rename to "did-jose" May 18, 2021
@peacekeeper
Copy link
Member

Hey, since this is a work item of the I&D WG, if you rename it then maybe you could also update the entry in the list of Work Items, and while doing that also check the work item leads that are listed there?

Perhaps we will also ask you at some point to give a general update on the work item progress during one of the weekly I&D WG calls.

@TomCJones
Copy link

I am unclear where this label is applied. Jose has a header. Some of what is proposed is already in that header. Perhaps all of it should be in the Jose header. Otherwise difference levels of the code would be involved. That seems wrong.

@oed
Copy link
Contributor Author

oed commented May 19, 2021

@TomCJones Are you replying to the wrong issue? :)

@awoie
Copy link
Member

awoie commented May 19, 2021

I agree that renaming/repackaging makes sense but I don't have a strong stance here.

@oed
Copy link
Contributor Author

oed commented Jul 15, 2021

@mirceanis Would love to hear your thoughts here!

@mirceanis
Copy link
Member

Modularising this repo sounds like a good idea.
I'm not yet sure about the actual module layout.
I think the goals should be to reduce lib size (and transitive dependencies) for users that only use a subset of modules, and to allow extension of the supported algorithms using user-provided modules.

@oed
Copy link
Contributor Author

oed commented Jul 17, 2021

I think the goals should be to reduce lib size (and transitive dependencies) for users that only use a subset of modules, and to allow extension of the supported algorithms using user-provided modules.

Yep agreed! That was what I was aiming for above, e.g. with @did-jose/signing-* representing a specific alg.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 25, 2021

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Sep 25, 2021
@oed
Copy link
Contributor Author

oed commented Sep 25, 2021

This is not stale.

@mirceanis
Copy link
Member

The way I see it, the goals of this would be to:

  • allow folks to use a subset of features (if they want) to reduce their bundle sizes
  • allow alternative implementations of algorithms (stablelib vs noble vs elliptic vs etc..)
  • allow extension with other algorithms that are not covered here yet
  • [optional] move the did-jwt-vc library here as one of the packages

Perhaps we can start with the alternative/extension use-cases, where the [currently hardcoded] mapping of algorithms to verifiers is made configurable (see #234 as well).

There is also another mapping of algorithms to signers which probably doesn't make much sense anymore, since the signer is expected to be provided externally anyway.

I haven't yet gone through the JWE code to see how we can start to slice it into modules

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pinned a known issue or feature that should not be closed by bots
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants