I also agree that the spec already has this right. Typically no tag will be
needed because the application knows the data structure is a CWT from context.
The tag is available for any use cases where it's needed to resolve ambiguity
that might otherwise be present.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:05 AM
To: Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>; ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag
On Oct 19, 2017, at 18:41, Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote:
>
> • I already know that this is going to be a CWT so I save a byte.
> • I don’t know so I waste a tag byte in that case.
Right. In REST protocols, we usually have a media type, so we don’t need the
CBOR Tag.
Within some other data structures, or in legacy protocols such as MQTT, we may
not have that, so a tag is a good single standard way to indicate this.
(Does the latter case need to be a single byte [which is then preceded by 0xd8,
by the way]? Maybe that would not have been necessary(*), but then CWTs are
going to be rather common.
And 61 is a “=“, which is cool for our hexdump reading population :-)
Grüße, Carsten
(*) The number is already assigned, BTW.
_______________________________________________
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
