Les Hazlewood

> I think if we just tack on a `| RuntimeException` we should be good for backward compatibility. If that's the case, why change the code at all? Just curious.

Unfortunately you cannot currently specify the ObjectMapper that the JwtBuilder will use to generate the resulting JSON. Yet. :) We'll use this issue to track the work to allow you...

Depends on #308.

This ticket would add support for claims of type: - LocalDateType - Instant - [OffsetDateTime](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/12/docs/api/java.base/java/time/OffsetDateTime.html) ? Anything else?

@jiangyongbing24 your own quote gives you the answer: > A JSON numeric value representing the number of **seconds** _not_ milliseconds. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39926104/what-format-is-the-exp-expiration-time-claim-in-a-jwt

Adding this to the 1.0 milestone because it is not a backwards-compatible change (and also marked as `jwt-compliance`). For 1.0, we should remove ISO-8601 support entirely for this `exp`, `nbf`...

Hi Jeff! That work is being done in the [jwe branch](https://github.com/jwtk/jjwt/tree/jwe). Most of it has been done actually - the current delay is that many of the JWE test vectors...

Test vectors to verify the implementation are here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7520

@vicente-valls it says "based on" - it didn't say fully implemented. If you read the README, you'd see that we explicitly indicate that JWE is not yet fully supported: https://github.com/jwtk/jjwt#currently-unsupported-features...

@vicente-valls "based on" means that we use those RFCs (and only those RFCs) to build JJWT - we don't use any other sources. But it does not mean that we've...