Hi, Thanks for your answer. I think content negotiation should be done using the Content-Format option like other CoAP based protocols. And would also match the HTTP way to do it.
-- Julien Vermillard On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, peter van der Stok <stokc...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > HI Julien, > > > Julien Vermillard schreef op 2017-03-30 09:08: > >> Hi, >> I'm currently implementing EST over CoAP. >> > > Great, that is good news. > > >> I wonder why, on simple enrollment, the payload is put in a CBOR >> binary string? >> I understand why dropping base64, but just putting the PKCS#10 binary >> in the CoAP payload is technically enough. What is the benefit of CBOR >> encapsulation? >> > > Yes, that was a choice. I first had the simple binary in my mind, but then > I thought that to use CBOR encapsulation would help to distinguish from > other (future) versions of pkcs#10. > >> >> BTW you have a GitHub or something where I can post issues/comments? >> > > I do have a Github but I am a very conservative user. > >> >> -- >> Julien Vermillard >> _______________________________________________ >> Ace mailing list >> Ace@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >> >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
