> So I just don't know what to do, but I think we what have done is wrong.
What we have now is "application/voucher-cose+cbor", which is not wrong I think. There's currently no rule saying your media type needs to be named in a particular way, there are options to name it. In this same discussion thread (or parallel thread with same subject) we have discussed that "application/voucher+cose" would also be a good name, if we register the "+cose" suffix with IANA. Now the one thing that could be wrong is "application/voucher-cms+json" that is registered by RFC 8366. But that work concluded in 2018, so I guess we don't want to 'fix' this anymore; a name's just a name. Reason it may be wrong: the '+json' suffix implies that the most outer layer of encoding be JSON. And that's obviously not the case - it is CMS. For example, a parser not knowing the full "application/voucher-cms+json" media type may see the "+json" so it may fall back to JSON decoding of the data, which fails completely because the data is binary ASN.1 DER, not JSON. So it should have been "application/voucher-cms" or "application/voucher-json+cms" or so. > I don't think that voucher+ysig is meaningful (or accurate) for > us, because we also COSE sign it, which not every YANG-SID use will do. True, if we would use "voucher+ysid" then the meaning of "+ysid" needs to be formally defined as "CBOR based on a YANG model that uses SIDs for key compression, wrapped inside a COSE object". So "voucher+ysidcose" would be more accurate. Or "voucher+ysid+cose" in case we apply the rules of the new draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes. We could organize a 3-day workshop on this topic, I think! Pity that April 1st has just passed :( Esko -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 17:06 To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > As you said also the following would be possible today: > application/voucher+ysid > if we register 'ysid' as being CBOR-YANG-SID that's included in a COSE > wrapper. I find this less useful than the first options of '+cbor' or > '+cose' , it seems too specific. I'm agnositc because: 1) over COAP it's a single CONTENT-FORMAT, so the size does not matter. 2) over HTTPS, it's a rich network environment, so bytes do not count. We've been told at this point that we should use as specific a format as possible. I don't think that voucher+ysig is meaningful (or accurate) for us, because we also COSE sign it, which not every YANG-SID use will do. So I just don't know what to do, but I think we what have done is wrong. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
