-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 308
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
[RFC] Maskwork General Payload Exchange Format (v1.0.0.0) #225
Comments
Expedited ratification requested. |
Ratified. |
I have to say you're using JSON like XML(the |
|
Yeah and in those issues, there are no explanations about why do we need a signature |
an alternative format. with minimal restrict on the format: {
"_meta_": {
"version": 1,
"type": "the type of this object",
// add signature etc here
},
// Content here
} |
Metadata
Preface
D2A028D2-DF0E-46F9-B56E-18B5E798B2C3
.Background
We have been working a lot with payloads, including Friendship Certificate, UserGroup Membership Certificate, and #222.
Now we need an extensible payload exchange format to enhance the abstraction.
Criteria
CRLF
.%20
.\s
.Payload Structure
It is basically JSON.
CRLF
,%20
, and\s
are allowed but not recommended.Meta
,Content
, andSignature
are basic nodes. Additional nodes may be used for other purposes.Content Structure
Use
_
attribute to refer to child nodes. For forward compatibility, use additional attributes.Mandatory Starting Nodes
App, AppVersion, and Time are mandatory.
Application-Specific Data
Take the example for Sisterhood Membership Certificate. The the payload should look like:
Signature
BaseSig
BaseSig is the basic signature. Additional nodes may be used for other purposes.
Input for
BaseSig
should always be the serialized string ofContent._
node.To be continued...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: