This is not that. Both of those issues had to do with the representation of the signature in the message. Issue #59 is about what gets signed, and what it proposes is much more limited than the other two.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM, jose issue tracker < [email protected]> wrote: > #59: Allow direct signing and align with AAD > > > Comment (by [email protected]): > > This largely seems to be an attempt to reopen issues #23 (Make crypto > independent of binary encoding (base64)) and #26 (Allow for signature > payload to not be base64 encoded), both of which were already closed as > "wontfix". In particular, both of the already-closed issues proposed > using an unencoded payload value as the signature input, rather than the > encoded value, which is the same as what is is being requested here. > > I therefore believe that this should be closed as a duplicate of #26. > > -- > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > Reporter: [email protected] | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- > Type: defect | [email protected] > Priority: major | Status: new > Component: json-web- | Milestone: > signature | Version: > Severity: - | Resolution: > Keywords: | > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > > Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/59#comment:2> > jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/> > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
