I've been doing a similar thing recently. I found PASETO to be interesting ( https://paseto.io ), which is a lot like JWT but is simpler and more opinionated (e.g. there is no plaintext option; symmetric and asymmetric operations are cleanly separated; etc.). I especially enjoyed watching this video https://youtu.be/RijGNytjbOI

I still decided to go with JWT, since PASETO isn't yet standard and its software hasn't been around for long, but it definitely helped me understand more about the choice I was making. In particular, PASETO distinguishes between "local" tokens (producer and consumer can both use the same symmetric key) versus "public" tokens (producer and consumer can't use the same key, e.g. third party services run by different organisations; hence asymmetric keys are needed). PASETO encourages local tokens to be used when possible, since their keys can be shorter, they generate shorter tokens, they're faster to encrypt/decrypt, they're easier to rotate, etc.; public tokens are essentially a last resort when we must interact with a third party.

I was originally considering 'public' JWTs (i.e. asymmetric keys) for my use case, since we're using AWS API Gateway and that has the option to check the signatures of 'public' JWTs, and reject invalid ones before they ever hit my code. However, I eventually went with 'local' JWTs (i.e. symmetric keys), since the convenience of having AWS discard some tokens for us wasn't worth the (mostly logistical) overhead of using asymmetric keys.

My choice to use the JJWT library was also partly due to its recommendation by the JPaseto library ( https://github.com/paseto-toolkit/jpaseto ).