On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:02:35PM -0800, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > Flattened JSON, IMO. And I think we should standardize on that single > representation. > I think we should not specify only that a JSON serialisation be used. We SHOULD NOT specify that flattened must be used. Many JOSE libraries do not care and will decode either JSON representation as long as it is valid. Many JOSE libraries would not even provide a knob to tell it to admit only the flattened serialisation (or vice versa).
If the intent is to require that exactly one signature is used, then just say that. Thanks, Fraser > On 02/14/2017 03:39 PM, Logan Widick wrote: > > All, > > > > Which JWS serialization is to be used when implementing? The document > > indicates that the examples are in either flattened JSON or general > > JSON serializations for readability. But which serialization must be > > used for the actual implementations? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Logan Widick > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
