We should probably track the conversation on the JSON list to try to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
IMHO, if it is going to happen in JSON WG, then it should use the algorithms and probably header parameters specified by JWA, etc. It should limit the scope to payload processing and leave the rest to JOSE. Perhaps we could also consider rechartering JOSE WG to specifying signing of unencoded JSON payloads. Cheers, Nat On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:03:09 +0900 Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > The discussion started this morning (for me) in the JSON Wg list. > > See the thread started on > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03606.html > > Best, > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en -- Nat Sakimura ([email protected]) Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. PLEASE READ: The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
