lestrrat
lestrrat
Since this PR is going to be closed soon (b/c I'm merging), might want to create a new issue to discuss it.
closing because I merged #1151. Let us continue discussion elsewhere if need be.
> The only possible concern would be adopting the draft before it has an official RFC number Right, I'm reluctant to implement such a thing without a compelling use case...
There has been significant progress, apparently. still needs IANA review? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms/
@whitlockjc thanks for your reports, but I don't have much time and motivation to spend on this project right now. I may come back later, but I just can't promise...
ref: #7733. Probably can be closed now?
Sounds like a plan. If you can provide the code, that would be nice.
As to it would make sense to support something akin to LC_TIME: yes :) As to am I able to do it (now): no :( I think it would be...
Is there a list of actual semantic changes that you applied to internal/jwx anywhere? Actually, from a cursory look, I think it's pre-1.0 code :D am I correct?
Huh, I let Cursor do the initial cleanup, and started digging, but hmmm. It looks like you are using the jwx packages more so for building blocks of your own...