On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:43 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org> wrote:
> On 09/05/2018 12:39 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Using the same notation, I'm:
> >
> > 1) ""
> > 2) "urn:ietf:params:acme:get"
> > 99) "{}"
>
> Given that, I'm willing to compromise on "". I think the experience we
> had of almost implementing bugs with that approach was informative, but
> isn't decisive.
>
Thanks for compromising. I agree that the interop stuff will cause some
hiccups, but hopeful that rather than being a blocker for folks, it will
create some pressure for JOSE libraries to interop better in this case. In
any case, I'll update the PR to make extra clear that {payload: ""} is
what's required.
Anyone else have opinions before we consider this closed?
--Richard
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
