JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)
draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-04

Abstract

Cryptographic operations like hashing and signing requires that the original data does not change during serialization or parsing. By applying the rules defined by the JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS), data provided in JSON [RFC8259] format can be exchanged "as is", while still being usable by secure cryptographic operations. JCS achieves this by building on the serialization formats for JSON primitives as defined by ECMAScript [ES6], constraining JSON data to the I‑JSON [RFC7493] subset, and through a platform independent property sorting scheme.

The intended audiences of this document are JSON tool vendors, as well as designers of JSON based cryptographic solutions.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2019.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Terminology
• 3. Detailed Operation
• 3.1. Creation of Input Data
• 3.2. Generation of Canonical JSON Data
• 3.2.1. Whitespace
• 3.2.2. Serialization of Primitive Data Types
• 3.2.2.1. Serialization of Literals
• 3.2.2.2. Serialization of Strings
• 3.2.2.3. Serialization of Numbers
• 3.2.3. Sorting of Object Properties
• 3.2.4. UTF-8 Generation
• 4. IANA Considerations
• 5. Security Considerations
• 6. Acknowledgements
• 7. References
• 7.1. Normative References
• 7.2. Informal References
• Appendix A. ES6 Sample Canonicalizer
• Appendix B. Number Serialization Samples
• Appendix C. Canonicalized JSON as "Wire Format"
• Appendix D. Dealing with Big Numbers
• Appendix E. String Subtype Handling
• E.1. Immutable String Method
• E.2. Data Normalization Method
• E.3. Subtypes in Arrays
• Appendix F. Implementation Guidelines
• Appendix G. Open Source Implementations
• Appendix H. Other JSON Canonicalization Efforts
• Appendix I. Development Portal
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

Cryptographic operations like hashing and signing requires that the original data does not change during serialization or parsing. One way of accomplishing this is converting the data into a format that has a simple and fixed representation like Base64Url [RFC4648], which is how JWS [RFC7515] addressed this issue.

Another solution is to create a canonical version of the data, similar to what was done for the XML Signature [XMLDSIG] standard. The primary advantage with a canonicalizing scheme is that data can be kept in its original form. This is the core rationale behind JCS. Put another way: by using canonicalization a JSON Object may remain a JSON Object even after being signed which simplifies system design, documentation and logging.

To avoid "reinventing the wheel", JCS relies on serialization of JSON primitives compatible with ECMAScript (aka JavaScript) beginning with version 6 [ES6], hereafter referred to as "ES6".

Seasoned XML developers recalling difficulties getting signatures to validate (usually due to different interpretations of the quite intricate XML canonicalization rules as well as of the equally extensive Web Services security standards), may rightfully wonder why JCS would not suffer from similar issues. The reasons are twofold:

• The absence of a namespace concept and default values, as well as constraining data to the I‑JSON subset eliminate the need for specific number parsing schemes for dealing with canonicalization.
• JCS compatible serialization of JSON primitives is supported by most current Web browsers and as well as by Node.js [NODEJS], while the full JCS specification is supported by multiple Open Source implementations (see Appendix G). See also Appendix F.

In summary, the JCS specification describes how serialization of JSON primitives compliant with ES6, combined with an elementary property sorting scheme, can be used for supporting "Hashable" JSON. Note that "true" canonicalization is an optional JCS feature, usually not needed for cryptographic operations. See Appendix E for details.

JCS is compatible with some existing systems relying on JSON canonicalization such as JWK Thumbprint [RFC7638] and Keybase [KEYBASE].

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Detailed Operation

This section describes the different issues related to creating a canonical JSON representation, and how they are addressed by JCS.

3.1. Creation of Input Data

In order to serialize JSON data, one needs data that is adapted for JSON serialization. This is usually achieved by:

• Parsing previously generated JSON data.
• Programmatically creating data.

Irrespective of the method used, the data to be serialized MUST be compatible both with ES6 and I‑JSON [RFC7493], which implies the following:

• There MUST NOT be any duplicate property names within an element to be serialized as a JSON Object.
• String data MUST be expressible as Unicode [UNICODE].
• Numeric data MUST be expressible as IEEE-754 [IEEE754] double precision values. For applications needing higher precision or longer integers than offered by IEEE-754 double precision, Appendix D outlines how such requirements can be supported in an interoperable and extensible way.

Note: parsed String data MUST NOT be altered during subsequent serializations. For more information see Appendix E.

Note: although the Unicode standard offers a possibility combining certain characters into one, referred to as "Unicode Normalization" (https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/), such functionality MUST be delegated to the application layer.

3.2. Generation of Canonical JSON Data

The following subsections describe the steps required for creating a canonical JSON representation of the data elaborated on in the previous section.

Appendix A shows sample code for an ES6 based canonicalizer, matching the JCS specification.

3.2.1. Whitespace

Whitespace between JSON elements MUST NOT be emitted.

3.2.2. Serialization of Primitive Data Types

Assume that you parse a JSON object like the following:

  {
    "numbers": [333333333.33333329, 1E30, 4.50,
                2e-3, 0.000000000000000000000000001],
    "string": "\u20ac$\u000F\u000aA'\u0042\u0022\u005c\\\"\/",
    "literals": [null, true, false]
  }

If you subsequently serialize the parsed data using a serializer compliant with ES6's JSON.stringify(), the result would (with a line wrap added for display purposes only), be rather divergent with respect to representation of data:

  {"numbers":[333333333.3333333,1e+30,4.5,0.002,1e-27],"string":
  "\u20ac$\u000f\nA'B\"\\\\\"/","literals":[null,true,false]}

• Note: \u20ac denotes the Euro character, which not
  being ASCII, is currently not displayable in RFCs.

The reason for the difference between the parsed data and its serialized counterpart, is due to a wide tolerance on input data (as defined by JSON [RFC8259]), while output data (as defined by ES6), has a fixed representation. As can be seen by the example, numbers are subject to rounding as well.

The following subsections describe serialization of primitive JSON data types according to JCS. This part is identical to that of ES6.

3.2.2.1. Serialization of Literals

The JSON literals null, true, and false present no challenge since they already have a fixed definition in JSON [RFC8259].

3.2.2.2. Serialization of Strings

For JSON String data (which includes JSON Object property names as well), each character MUST be serialized as described below (also matching Section 24.3.2.2 of [ES6]):

• If the Unicode value falls within the traditional ASCII control character range (U+0000 through U+001F), it MUST be serialized using lowercase hexadecimal Unicode notation (\uhhhh) unless it is in the set of predefined JSON control characters U+0008, U+0009, U+000A, U+000C or U+000D which MUST be serialized as \b, \t, \n, \f and \r respectively.
• If the Unicode value is outside of the ASCII control character range, it MUST be serialized "as is" unless it is equivalent to U+005C (\) or U+0022 (") which MUST be serialized as \\ and \" respectively.

Finally, the serialized string value MUST be enclosed in double quotes (").

Note: some JSON systems permit the use of invalid Unicode data including "lone surrogates" (e.g. U+DEAD). Since this leads to interoperability issues including broken signatures, occurrences of such data MUST cause the JCS algorithm to terminate with an error indication.

3.2.2.3. Serialization of Numbers

JSON data of type Number MUST be serialized according to Section 7.1.12.1 of [ES6] including the "Note 2" enhancement.

Due to the relative complexity of this part, the algorithm itself is not included in this document. However, the specification is fully implemented by for example Google's V8 [V8]. The open source Java implementation mentioned in Appendix G uses a recently developed number serialization algorithm called Ryu [RYU].

ES6 builds on the IEEE-754 [IEEE754] double precision standard for representing JSON Number data. Appendix B holds a set of IEEE-754 sample values and their corresponding JSON serialization.

3.2.3. Sorting of Object Properties

Although the previous step indeed normalized the representation of primitive JSON data types, the result would not qualify as "canonical" since JSON Object properties are not in lexicographic (alphabetical) order.

Applied to the sample in Section 3.2.2, a properly canonicalized version should (with a line wrap added for display purposes only), read as:

  {"literals":[null,true,false],"numbers":[333333333.3333333,
  1e+30,4.5,0.002,1e-27],"string":"\u20ac$\u000f\nA'B\"\\\\\"/"}

• Note: \u20ac denotes the Euro character, which not
  being ASCII, is currently not displayable in RFCs.

The rules for lexicographic sorting of JSON Object properties according to JCS are as follows:

• JSON Object properties MUST be sorted in a recursive manner which means that possible JSON child Objects MUST have their properties sorted as well.
• JSON Array data MUST also be scanned for presence of JSON Objects (and applying associated property sorting), but array element order MUST NOT be changed.

When a JSON Object is about to have its properties sorted, the following measures MUST be adhered to:

• The sorting process is applied to property strings in their "raw" (unescaped) form. That is, a newline character is treated as U+000A.
• Property strings to be sorted are formatted as arrays of UTF-16 [UNICODE] code units. The sorting is based on pure value comparisons, where code units are treated as unsigned integers, independent of locale settings.
• Property strings either have different values at some index that is a valid index for both strings, or their lengths are different, or both. If they have different values at one or more index positions, let k be the smallest such index; then the string whose value at position k has the smaller value, as determined by using the < operator, lexicographically precedes the other string. If there is no index position at which they differ, then the shorter string lexicographically precedes the longer string.
• In plain English this means that property names are sorted in ascending order like the following:

        ""
        "a"
        "aa"
        "ab"

The rationale for basing the sort algorithm on UTF-16 code units is that it maps directly to the string type in ECMAScript (includes Web browsers), Java and .NET. Systems using another internal representation of string data will need to convert JSON property strings into arrays of UTF-16 code units before sorting. The conversion from UTF-8 or UTF-32 to UTF-16 is defined by the Unicode [UNICODE] standard.

Note: for the purpose of obtaining a deterministic property order, sorting on UTF-8 or UTF-32 encoded data would also work, but the result would differ (and thus be incompatible with this specification).

3.2.4. UTF-8 Generation

Finally, in order to create a platform independent representation, the resulting JSON string data MUST be encoded in UTF-8.

Applied to the sample in Section 3.2.3 this should yield the following bytes here shown in hexadecimal notation:

  7b 22 6c 69 74 65 72 61 6c 73 22 3a 5b 6e 75 6c 6c 2c 74 72
  75 65 2c 66 61 6c 73 65 5d 2c 22 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 22 3a
  5b 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 2e 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 2c 31
  65 2b 33 30 2c 34 2e 35 2c 30 2e 30 30 32 2c 31 65 2d 32 37
  5d 2c 22 73 74 72 69 6e 67 22 3a 22 e2 82 ac 24 5c 75 30 30
  30 66 5c 6e 41 27 42 5c 22 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 22 2f 22 7d

This data is intended to be usable as input to cryptographic methods.

For other uses see Appendix C.

4. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

5. Security Considerations

It is vital performing "sanity" checks on input data to avoid overflowing buffers and similar things that could affect the integrity of the system.

6. Acknowledgements

Building on ES6 Number serialization was originally proposed by James Manger. This ultimately led to the adoption of the entire ES6 serialization scheme for JSON primitives.

Other people who have contributed with valuable input to this specification include Bron Gondwana, Jim Schaad, John-Mark Gurney, Mark Nottingham, Mike Jones, Mike Miller, Mike Samuel, Michal Wadas, Richard Gibson, Robert Tupelo-Schneck and Scott Ananian.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

7.2. Informal References

Appendix A. ES6 Sample Canonicalizer

Below is a functionally complete example of a JCS compliant canonicalizer for usage with ES6 based systems.

Note: the primary purpose of this code is highlighting the canonicalization algorithm. Using the full power of ES6 would reduce the code size considerably but would also be more difficult to follow by non-experts.

  var canonicalize = function(object) {
  
      var buffer = '';
      serialize(object);
      return buffer;
  
      function serialize(object) {
          if (object === null || typeof object !== 'object' ||
              object.toJSON != null) {
              /////////////////////////////////////////////////
              // Primitive type or toJSON - Use ES6/JSON     //
              /////////////////////////////////////////////////
              buffer += JSON.stringify(object);
  
          } else if (Array.isArray(object)) {
              /////////////////////////////////////////////////
              // Array - Maintain element order              //
              /////////////////////////////////////////////////
              buffer += '[';
              let next = false;
              object.forEach((element) => {
                  if (next) {
                      buffer += ',';
                  }
                  next = true;
                  /////////////////////////////////////////
                  // Array element - Recursive expansion //
                  /////////////////////////////////////////
                  serialize(element);
              });
              buffer += ']';
  
          } else {
              /////////////////////////////////////////////////
              // Object - Sort properties before serializing //
              /////////////////////////////////////////////////
              buffer += '{';
              let next = false;
              Object.keys(object).sort().forEach((property) => {
                  if (next) {
                      buffer += ',';
                  }
                  next = true;
                  ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                  // Property names are strings - Use ES6/JSON //
                  ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                  buffer += JSON.stringify(property);
                  buffer += ':';
                  //////////////////////////////////////////
                  // Property value - Recursive expansion //
                  //////////////////////////////////////////
                  serialize(object[property]);
              });
              buffer += '}';
          }
      }
  };

Appendix B. Number Serialization Samples

The following table holds a set of ES6 compatible Number serialization samples, including some edge cases. The column "IEEE-754" refers to the internal ES6 representation of the Number data type which is based on the IEEE-754 [IEEE754] standard using 64-bit (double precision) values, here expressed in hexadecimal.

|====================================================================|
|     IEEE-754     |   JSON Representation     |       Comment       |
|====================================================================|
| 0000000000000000 | 0                         | Zero                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 8000000000000000 | 0                         | Minus zero          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 0000000000000001 | 5e-324                    | Smallest pos number |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 8000000000000001 | -5e-324                   | Smallest neg number |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 7fefffffffffffff | 1.7976931348623157e+308   | Largest pos number  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ffefffffffffffff | -1.7976931348623157e+308  | Largest neg number  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 4340000000000000 | 9007199254740992          | Largest pos integer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| c340000000000000 | -9007199254740992         | Largest neg integer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 7fffffffffffffff |                           | NaN - Invalid       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 7ff0000000000000 |                           | Infinity - Invalid  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 44b52d02c7e14af5 | 9.999999999999997e+22     |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 44b52d02c7e14af6 | 1e+23                     |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 44b52d02c7e14af7 | 1.0000000000000001e+23    |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 444b1ae4d6e2ef4e | 999999999999999700000     |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 444b1ae4d6e2ef4f | 999999999999999900000     |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3eb0c6f7a0b5ed8d | 0.000001                  |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3eb0c6f7a0b5ed8c | 9.999999999999997e-7      |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 41b3de4355555553 | 333333333.3333332         |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 41b3de4355555554 | 333333333.33333325        |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 41b3de4355555555 | 333333333.3333333         |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 41b3de4355555556 | 333333333.3333334         |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 41b3de4355555557 | 333333333.33333343        |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| becbf647612f3696 | -0.0000033333333333333333 |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

Note: for maximum compliance with ECMAScript's JSON object, values that are to be interpreted as true integers, SHOULD be in the range -9007199254740991 to 9007199254740991.

Note: since NaN (Not a Number) and Infinity are not permitted in JSON, occurrences of such values MUST cause the JCS algorithm to terminate with an error indication.

Note: although a set of specific integers like 2**68 (4430000000000000 in IEEE-754 format) could be regarded as having extended precision, the JCS/ES6 number serialization algorithm does not take this in consideration.

Appendix C. Canonicalized JSON as "Wire Format"

Since the result from the canonicalization process (see Section 3.2.4), is fully valid JSON, it can also be used as "Wire Format". However, this is just an option since cryptographic schemes based on JCS, in most cases would not depend on that externally supplied JSON data already is canonicalized.

In fact, the ES6 standard way of serializing objects using JSON.stringify() produces a more "logical" format, where properties are kept in the order they were created or received. The example below shows an address record which could benefit from ES6 standard serialization:

  {
    "name": "John Doe",
    "address": "2000 Sunset Boulevard",
    "city": "Los Angeles",
    "zip": "90001",
    "state": "CA"
  }

Using canonicalization the properties above would be output in the order "address", "city", "name", "state" and "zip", which adds fuzziness to the data from a human (developer or technical support), perspective.

That is, for many applications, canonicalization would only be used internally for creating a "hashable" representation of the data needed for cryptographic operations.

Note: if message size is not a concern, you may even send "Pretty Printed" JSON data on the wire (since whitespace always is ignored by the canonicalization process).

Appendix D. Dealing with Big Numbers

There are several issues associated with the JSON Number type, here illustrated by the following sample object:

  {
    "giantNumber": 1.4e+9999,
    "payMeThis": 26000.33,
    "int64Max": 9223372036854775807
  }

Although the sample above conforms to JSON (according to [RFC8259]), applications would normally use different native data types for storing "giantNumber" and "int64Max". In addition, monetary data like "payMeThis" would presumably not rely on floating point data types due to rounding issues with respect to decimal arithmetic.

The established way handling this kind of "overloading" of the JSON Number type (at least in an extensible manner), is through mapping mechanisms, instructing parsers what to do with different properties based on their name. However, this greatly limits the value of using the Number type outside of its original somewhat constrained, JavaScript context. The ES6 JSON object does not support mappings to JSON Number either.

Due to the above, numbers that do not have a natural place in the current JSON ecosystem MUST be wrapped using the JSON String type. This is close to a de-facto standard for open systems. This is also applicable for other data types that do not have direct support in JSON, like "DateTime" objects. Also see Appendix E.

Aided by a system using the JSON String type; be it programmatic like

  var obj = JSON.parse('{"giantNumber": "1.4e+9999"}');
  var biggie = new BigNumber(obj.giantNumber);

or declarative schemes like OpenAPI [OPENAPI], JCS imposes no limits on applications, including when using ES6.

Appendix E. String Subtype Handling

Due to the limited set of data types featured in JSON, the JSON String type is commonly used for holding subtypes. This appendix shows that this can lead to interoperability problems depending on JSON parsing method, which MUST be dealt with by JCS compliant applications targeting a wider audience.

Assume you want to parse the following JSON string holding two subtypes and a JSON number:

  const jstring = 
      '{"time": "2019-01-28T07:45:10Z", "big": "055", "val": 3.5}';

This can accomplished by the following ES6 statement:

  var object = JSON.parse(jstring);

After parsing the actual data can be extracted which for subtypes also involve a conversion step using the parsed string argument as input:

  ... = new Date(object.time); // Date object
  ... = BigInt(object.big);    // Big integer
  ... = object.val;            // JSON/JS number

Canonicalization of "object" using the sample code in Appendix A would return the following string:

  {"big":"055","time":"2019-01-28T07:45:10Z",val:3.5}

Although this is (with respect to JCS) technically correct, there is another way parsing JSON data which also can be used with ES6 as shown below:

  // Currently required to make BigInt JSON serializable
  BigInt.prototype.toJSON = function() {
      return this.toString();
  };

  // JSON parsing using a "stream" based method
  var object = JSON.parse(jstring, 
      (k,v) => k == 'time' ? new Date(v) : k == 'big' ? BigInt(v) : v
  );

If you now apply the canonicalizer in Appendix A to "object", the following string would be generated:

  {"big":"55","time":"2019-01-28T07:45:10.000Z","val":3.5}

In this case the string arguments for "big" and "time" have changed with respect to the original, presumable making an application depending on JCS fail.

The reason for the deviation is that in stream and schema based JSON parsers, the original "string" argument is typically replaced on-the-fly by the native subtype which when serialized, may exhibit a different and platform dependent pattern.

The above may at first look like an insurmountable obstacle. However, there are two fairly straightforward ways making subtype serialization independent of parsing scheme elaborated on in the following subsections.

E.1. Immutable String Method

One method for coping with stream and schema based parsers is treating subtypes as "pure" strings with respect to JSON. To accomplish this, subtype conversions are performed outside of the core parsing process. In modern programming platforms like Go, Java and C# this can be achieved with moderate efforts by combining annotations, getters and setters. Below is an example in C#/Json.NET showing a part of a class that is serializable as a JSON Object:

  // The immutable string solution uses a local
  // string variable for JSON serialization while
  // exposing another type to the application
  [JsonProperty("amount")]
  private string _amount;

  [JsonIgnore]
  public decimal Amount {
      get { return decimal.Parse(_amount); }
      set { _amount = value.ToString(); }
  }

In an application "Amount" can be accessed as any other property while it is actually represented by a quoted string in JSON contexts.

Note: the example above also addresses the constraints on numeric data implied by I-JSON (the C# "decimal" data type has quite different characteristics compared to IEEE-754 double precision).

Note: the intial example in this appendix showing parsing using ES6, faithfully implements the immutable string method.

E.2. Data Normalization Method

Another method for handling stream and schema based parsing is to normalize subtype data. This requires that the following measures are adhered to:

• The community or standard utilizing a specific JSON schema defines a strict normalized form for each of the used subtypes.
• Compatible serializers are created for each subtype.

By adding a dedicated serializer for the "Date" subtype, the sample JSON schema becomes compatible with JCS:

  Date.prototype.toJSON = function() {
      let date = this.toISOString();
      // In this particular case we selected a UTC notation
      // yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ssZ
      return date.substring(0, date.indexOf('.')) + 'Z';
  };

The canonical string will after this upgrade read as:

  {"big":"55","time":"2019-01-28T07:45:10Z","val":3.5}

The observant reader will note that "big" still is in error but that is to be expected since the "055" argument in the input data clearly is not a normalized form for a big integer. That is, the originator of the JSON data did not follow the "contract".

A positive side effect of this arrangement is that it enforces strict definitions of subtypes which improves interoperability in general as well.

Defining specific subtypes and their normalized form is out of scope for this specification.

Unlike the immutable string method, the data normalization method accomplishes "true" canonicalization which may be usable by a wider range of applications than "Hashable" JSON.

E.3. Subtypes in Arrays

Since the JSON Array construct permits mixing arbitrary JSON elements, custom parsing and serialization code MUST be used to support one (or both) of the methods described in the previous subsections.

Appendix F. Implementation Guidelines

The optimal solution is integrating support for JCS directly in JSON serializers (parsers need no changes). That is, canonicalization would just be an additional "mode" for a JSON serializer. However, this is currently not the case. Fortunately JCS support can be performed through externally supplied canonicalizer software, enabling signature creation schemes like the following:

1. Create the data to be signed.
2. Serialize the data using existing JSON tools.
3. Let the external canonicalizer process the serialized data and return canonicalized result data.
4. Sign the canonicalized data.
5. Add the resulting signature value to the original JSON data through a designated signature property.
6. Serialize the completed (now signed) JSON object using existing JSON tools.

A compatible signature verification scheme would then be as follows:

1. Parse the signed JSON data using existing JSON tools.
2. Read and save the signature value from the designated signature property.
3. Remove the signature property from the parsed JSON object.
4. Serialize the remaining JSON data using existing JSON tools.
5. Let the external canonicalizer process the serialized data and return canonicalized result data.
6. Verify that the canonicalized data matches the saved signature value using the algorithm and key used for creating the signature.

A canonicalizer like above is effectively only a "filter", potentially usable with a multitude of quite different cryptographic schemes.

Using a JSON serializer with integrated JCS support, the serialization performed before the canonicalization step could be eliminated for both processes.

Appendix G. Open Source Implementations

The following Open Source implementations have been verified to be compatible with JCS:

• JavaScript: https://www.npmjs.com/package/canonicalize
• Java: https://github.com/erdtman/java-json-canonicalization
• Go: https://github.com/cyberphone/json-canonicalization/tree/master/go
• .NET/C#: https://github.com/cyberphone/json-canonicalization/tree/master/dotnet
• Python: https://github.com/cyberphone/json-canonicalization/tree/master/python3

Appendix H. Other JSON Canonicalization Efforts

There are (and have been) other efforts creating "Canonical JSON". Below is a list of URLs to some of them:

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form-00
• https://gibson042.github.io/canonicaljson-spec/
• http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Canonical_JSON

Appendix I. Development Portal

The JCS specification is currently developed at: https://github.com/cyberphone/ietf-json-canon.

The most recent "editors' copy" can be found at: https://cyberphone.github.io/ietf-json-canon.

JCS source code and test data is available at: https://github.com/cyberphone/json-canonicalization

Authors' Addresses