So flattened and general JSON are both allowed, and the non-JSON compact is not allowed?
On Feb 15, 2017 8:38 PM, "Fraser Tweedale" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
