%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options instead of this I-D. @techreport{jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00, number = {draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options-00}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-jose-jws-signing-input-options/00/}, author = {Michael B. Jones}, title = {{JWS Signing Input Options}}, pagetotal = 11, year = 2015, month = may, day = 27, abstract = {JSON Web Signature (JWS) represents the payload of a JWS as a base64url encoded value and uses this value in the JWS Signature computation. While this enables arbitrary payloads to be integrity protected, some have described use cases in which the base64url encoding is unnecessary and/or an impediment to adoption, especially when the payload is large and/or detached. This specification defines a means of accommodating these use cases by defining an option to change the JWS Signing Input computation to not base64url- encode the payload. Also, JWS includes a representation of the JWS Protected Header and a period ('.') character in the JWS Signature computation. While this cryptographically binds the protected Header Parameters to the integrity protected payload, some of have described use cases in which this binding is unnecessary and/or an impediment to adoption, especially when the payload is large and/or detached. This specification defines a means of accommodating these use cases by defining an option to change the JWS Signing Input computation to not include a representation of the JWS Protected Header and a period ('.') character in the JWS Signing Input. These options are intended to broaden the set of use cases for which the use of JWS is a good fit.}, }