Pardon, I got confused that allowing b64:true for JWTs implies a non-compact serialisation.
Still, I think JWT better not be mentioned in this spec. Vladimir On 25.09.2015 16:15, Vladimir Dzhuvinov wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I'm looking at the -02 draft right now, as I was considering > implementing it, at least experimentally for now. > > I'm not sure I understand why JWT is mentioned in it. Is this a real use > case? Section 6 effectively implies an alternative JWT encoding, using > normative language, but this conflicts with the JWT RFC which says that > "JWTs are always represented using the JWS Compact Serialization or the > JWE Compact Serialization." > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519#section-1 > > Cheers, > > Vladimir > > > On 14.09.2015 09:28, Mike Jones wrote: >> Draft -02 of the JWS Unencoded Payload Option specification makes these >> updates: >> * Added an "updates" clause for RFC 7519 because this specification >> prohibits JWTs from using "b64":false. >> -- Vladimir Dzhuvinov :: [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
