Re: [jose] signing an existing JWT

An answer not related to the size issue which might be relevant regardless:
http://world.std.com/~dtd/sign_encrypt/sign_encrypt7.html

--Axel

2012/10/29 Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>

>
> Let's say we have created a JWE as such:
>
>
> headerOne.encryptedKeyOne.initializationVectorOne.ciphertextOne.integritityVectorOne
>
> This is now the payload to a JWS. Rather than increasing the token size by
> 4/3 by URL safe base 64 encoding the payload (since it is already URL
> safe), it would be useful to have a JWS header parameter that indicates the
> payload was not re-encoded and does not need to be URL safe base 64 decoded.
>
> As there are more periods than expected in a JWS, decoding would ignore
> all periods except the first and last one for separating out the header,
> payload and signature.
>
> The indicating parameter would seem to be either "tip" or "cty". I'm still
> confused about the difference between the two parameters, so not sure which
> one is appropriate.
>
> -- Dick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>