Record 1.x compatibility commitments and base64url scope - #190
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced Sep 26, 2026
5 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The future compatibility queue lacked explicit dispositions, leaving optional proposals open to being treated as implementation commitments. Record each 1.x keep/defer decision with consumer evidence, migration cost and the process required before accepting a future break. Link the record from the consumer and contribution guides.
Resolve the base64url proposal as out of scope: use the JDK byte codec when the protocol requires it, document padding/canonicalization/Unicode/resource-limit boundaries, and add no public codec, facade or view binding. No breaking proposal is accepted and no speculative implementation tickets are created. Java 8, published API/module identities, dependency scopes and existing ESAPI delegates remain unchanged.
Validation: documentation-only diff and local links checked; the byte example compiled with
javac --release 8and printedAAECon JDK 17. The JDK decoder's acceptance of padded/unpadded input was checked. Sol review and final Astra review found no actionable findings on70720012ab25d5218ef16811fbd6ef2f29127c44; all 28 final-head checks passed before merge. No artifact inputs change, so the batch 05 clean-build comparison remains applicable.Closes #142. Refs #149 (closed as not planned after merge), and batch 06 in #169. No release, removal date or 2.0 promise is introduced; #110/#111 and the complete 1.5 release gate remain open.