I just spotted that further down. I am OK with no pad character as long as that isn't going to mess up string parsing in some situations.
The empty string is arguably more compact. John B. On 2011-03-28, at 6:02 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > Correct – good catch. I’ll update the draft. The intent was for there to be > no pad character in that case. > > -- > Mike > > From: John Bradley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:00 PM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] [OAUTH-WG] JSON Web Token (JWT) and JSON Web > Signature (JWS) now in separate specs > > Mike in JWT 6.7 if the alg is none. > > Otherwise, if the "alg" value > is ""none"", the JWT Claim Segment is the empty string. > I may be missing something. If the Alg is none then the Claim segment is > still the claim segment. It is the Crypto segment that would just be > padding to maintain the format. > > In 8 10 the decoding has it correct. > > So in the event the signature alg is none do we make the cripto segment a pad > character? > > So normally it would be > xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxxxx > > Dropping the cripto segment looks like > xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx. > > Or with a pad char to be ignored > xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.0 > > Or something like that. > > John B. > On 2011-03-28, at 5:28 AM, Mike Jones wrote: > > > These are now published as IETF drafts. The IETF .txt version links are: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-json-web-token-03.txt > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-json-web-signature-01.txt > > -- Mike > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mike Jones > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:26 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] JSON Web Token (JWT) and JSON Web Signature (JWS) now in > separate specs > > As promised, I have split the contents of the JWT spec > draft-jones-json-web-token-01 into two simpler specs: > draft-jones-json-web-token-02 > draft-jones-json-web-signature-00 > These should have introduced no semantic changes from the previous spec. > > I then applied the feedback that I received since JWT -01 and created revised > versions of the split specs: > draft-jones-json-web-token-03 > draft-jones-json-web-signature-01 > The only breaking change introduced was that x5t (X.509 Certificate > Thumbprint) is now a SHA-1 hash of the DER-encoded certificate, rather than a > SHA-256 has, as SHA-1 is the prevailing existing practice for certificate > thumbprint calculations. See the Document History sections for details on > each change made. > > .txt and .xml versions are also available. I plan to publish these as IETF > drafts once the submission window re-opens on Monday. Feedback welcome! > > -- Mike > > P.S. Yes, work on the companion encryption spec is now under way… > > _______________________________________________ > Openid-specs-ab mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
