Saltpack – A modern crypto messaging format
Not totally sure what BaseX is, how it compares versus Base64, especially post HTTP deflate compressions, but I&#x27;m not sure I like it. I&#x27;m pretty sure this kind of exercise is better left out, and that everyone should just use zstd on whatever encoding so as to decouple problem domains.<p>Round two of skepticism: msgpack is a niche player with no clear big corporate sponsor. Protobufs, flatbufs, and thrift are all actively making faster better quicker implementations, but I can not off the top of my head think of any major msgpack lovers. Avro also seems to just generally have some fast impls already, especially on platforms I care about[1], so credit there too. I ought review, but out of hand I can&#x27;t think of anything distinguishing about msgpack.<p>Definitely nice having <i>some</i> alternative to Salmon protocol[2] (as in Buzz, OStatus) on hand. Alas I believe it&#x27;s again fully encapsulating, versus say http signatures[3], where the signature is decoupled from the payload. It takes both types!! Neither is right.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mtth&#x2F;avsc&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Benchmarks" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mtth&#x2F;avsc&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Benchmarks</a>  
[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.salmon-protocol.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.salmon-protocol.org&#x2F;</a>
[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;draft-cavage-http-signatures-06" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;draft-cavage-http-signatures-06</a>