Agree with requesting this registration for COSE. Some remarks on this request:
1. Given the existing names of registrations in the Structured Syntax Suffixes
registry, the following name would be more appropriate perhaps:
Name: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
2. While STD96 as reference is probably correct, it would be useful to add the
latest COSE RFC (9052) as well. This is also more in line with the other
registrations that list RFC numbers. And RFCs are better known than STDs. Or
maybe this was already intended.
3. The security considerations should point to a section of RFC 9052 (Section
12), also like other registrations do.
4. Encoding considerations should mention COSE - current text looks like it
could be a copy/paste bug:
Encoding considerations: COSE is always encoded as CBOR, which is binary
Regards
Esko
-----Original Message-----
From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 18:47
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [Anima] registration for +cose
as per RFC6838:
Name: application/cose
+suffix: +cose
References: STD96
Encoding considerations: CBOR is always encoded as binary
Interoperability considerations: None
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Security considerations: as per STD96
Contact: IETF COSE WG
Author/Change controller: IESG
(I was writing an ID for this, then realized that application/cose was
already a thing, and that all we needed was a suffix, which is Expert Review)
--
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
