Describe why core data model members are translated to JWT claims

[OR13]

Can we add an explanation why do these members need to be translated to the equivalents of the JWT claims?
iss, nbf, all of them are optional in RFC 7519 itself. They only become required when the JWT is used for a specific purpose, and the only place I can think of right now is an ID Token.

See: #11 (comment)

[selfissued]

The "iss", "iat", and "exp" claims are required in most secure profiles of JWTs. We should do the same.

Likewise, "kid" is typically a required header parameter (as of course, is "alg").

[OR13]

I am a +1 to making iat explicitly required...

I am a -1 to making exp required (core data model does not require it so this isn't the right place to argue that anyway).

iss is already required by the core data model.

[OR13]

This can be closed when #88 is merged

[OR13]

@selfissued still blocked by #88

[TallTed]

[@OR13] blocked by the same PR

Does this refer to #88?

Please refer to PRs and Issues by link/number, rather than indefinite things like "same PR".

[Sakurann]

#88 was merged