Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > I simply would like for the constrained voucher document to make a > statement about the use of the COSE content type field. I have no > strong opinions by now as to what it should say, but i would like our > RFCs not to be underspecified and leave implementers guess about use of > fields, leading to possibly more complex interop matrixes.
Already done.
> My sugestion for the constrained voucher text is:
> Constrained vouchers (application-type/voucher-cose+cbor, TBD3)
> SHOULD NOT use the COSE header "content type" field because the
> encoding is never "ambiguous" according to RFC8152 Section 3.1. If a
> constrained voucher contains this field, it MUST be ignored by the
> processing described in this document.
I don't think that this is useful to add.
"Unknown headers are ignored"
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
