Ah fair enough, forgot that. S.
On 16/10/14 14:10, Brian Campbell wrote: > A JWT, by it's very definition, is a set of base64url pieces concatenated > together with dot "." characters (which is also URL safe). So no additional > encoding or serialization of the JWT is needed. > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: > >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> - 2.1, assertion parameter: How come this one does not talk >> about base64url whereas the saml one does? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
