Thanks.
So, is it correct to understand that this is intended to the environment
that JWS Payload will not be munched by the processing middle-ware etc.?
Also, JWS Payload may include linefeed etc. So, the compact serialization
may appear like:
{"alg":"ES256"}.{"iss":"joe",
"exp":1300819380,
"http://example.com/is_root":true}.eyJhbGciOiJQUzI....etc.etc.etc...OJ-LWr
Is it correct?
Best,
Nat
2015-03-26 1:14 GMT+09:00 Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]>:
> The revised draft is now up. It is essentially a one pager. Which
> turns out to be five with the boiler plate and IANA section.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-joseunencoded-01
>
> 2. Serialization
>
> In the JWS Direct Serialization, no JWS Unprotected Header is used.
> In this case, the JOSE Header and the JWS Protected Header are the
> same.
>
> In the JWS Direct Serialization, a JWS is represented as the
> concatenation:
>
> UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' || (JWS Payload) || '.' ||
>
> (JWS Signature)
>
> The calculation of the signature is performed over the octet sequence
> that corresponds to the concatenation:
>
> UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' || (JWS Payload) || '.'
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
