Confusion between JWM vs JWS and wrong examples

The DID Comm specs we can read:
`All three DIDComm message formats — plaintext, signed, and encrypted — can be correctly understood as more generic [JWMs (JSON Web Messages)](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-looker-jwm-01)`
Although there are a lot of reference to JWS in the DID Comm specification

Links:
[DID Comm specs signed examples](https://identity.foundation/didcomm-messaging/spec/#c2-didcomm-signed-messages)
[JWM draft](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-looker-jwm-01)
[JWS RFC7515](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515.html)

The problem is that the signed message looks more like the examples in JWS and the JWM.
Because JWS uses the JWS Unprotected Header to have the `kid` and JWM uses JWS Protected Header.

Ex from the DID Comm specs:
```json
{
"payload":"eyJpZCI6IjEyMzQ1Njc4OTAiLCJ0eXAiOiJhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9kaWRjb21tLXBsYWluK2pzb24iLCJ0eXBlIjoiaHR0cDovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tL3Byb3RvY29scy9sZXRzX2RvX2x1bmNoLzEuMC9wcm9wb3NhbCIsImZyb20iOiJkaWQ6ZXhhbXBsZTphbGljZSIsInRvIjpbImRpZDpleGFtcGxlOmJvYiJdLCJjcmVhdGVkX3RpbWUiOjE1MTYyNjkwMjIsImV4cGlyZXNfdGltZSI6MTUxNjM4NTkzMSwiYm9keSI6eyJtZXNzYWdlc3BlY2lmaWNhdHRyaWJ1dGUiOiJhbmQgaXRzIHZhbHVlIn19",
"signatures":[
{
"protected":"eyJ0eXAiOiJhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9kaWRjb21tLXNpZ25lZCtqc29uIiwiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYifQ",
"signature":"gcW3lVifhyR48mLHbbpnGZQuziskR5-wXf6IoBlpa9SzERfSG9I7oQ9pssmHZwbvJvyMvxskpH5oudw1W3X5Qg",
"header":{
"kid":"did:example:alice#key-2"
}
}
]
}
```