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] _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
