COSE CHAIRS: can we have 5 minutes for this discussion?
I guess I can make two slides tomorrow and get Thomas to co-author them.Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/03/2023, 18:10, "Thomas Fossati" [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:49 PM Michael Richardson >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thomas Fossati [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I have commented on your respective issue trackers. >> > >> > I saw, but I think that this requires some cross-WG discussion and consensus, >> > and I think that the COSE WG should tell us what to do. >> >> Sure, thank you for bringing COSE in the loop. > I just realised this needed some follow-up from my side. > What MCR is talking about is the eat-media-type [1] draft we are doing > in RATS. The document requests registration of the +cwt structured > syntax suffix (see Section 6.1). > The idea is to use +cwt to indicate that the media type is encoded as a > CWT, symmetric to +jwt. > In our case we'd be using it in composition with application/eat to > differentiate between the JWT and CWT serialisations of EAT. > COSE is the natural stakeholders for this, so if you could have a look > and see if we are doing the right thing it'd be awesome. And, if ANIMA should also be using +CWT for what is now RFC8366bis (and used to be in the constrained-voucher document), or if our use of application/voucher-cose+cbor is wrong. (DAMN. It's not in rfc8366bis yet. It should be) -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
