jricher
commented
4 months ago @selfissued I'm fine with changing the values here, but the question is more what the appropriate containment is at the protocol level. I don't believe the signaling you are referring to works in this case. There are two JOSE-based mechanisms defined by GNAP, one uses JWS as the message payload, effectively replacing the JSON with its own type -- that's the "Attached JWS" payload. The other keeps the payload as-is (JSON) but uses JWS to create a detached signature. The payload of the JWS then becomes a hash of the content instead of the content itself. Within GNAP these are signaled by separate field values, but shouldn't they be separate typ values as well, as per the best practice RFCs?
If we remove +jwsd as a suffix, would you then recommend that the distinction move to the root types instead? If we go that route, I think we would probably just remove the subtypes entirely. So instead of gnap-binding+jwsd we'd have gnap-binding-jwsd, instead of gnap-binding+jws we'd have gnap-binding-jws. Would that address your concerns?
selfissued
✅ Deploy Preview for gnap-core-protocol-editors-draft ready!
Toggle QR Code...
Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.