Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
getting used to using STD numbers is kinda important.
The point of STD numbers is that they are an indirection.
would this link be better: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std96
> 3. The security considerations should point to a section of RFC 9052
> (Section 12), also like other registrations do.
I thought it did :-)
> 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
Yes, that's better.
as per RFC6838:
Name: application/cose
+suffix: +cose
References: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std96 (RFC9052)
Encoding considerations: COSE is always encoded as CBOR, which is binary
Interoperability considerations: None
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Security considerations: as per RFC9052, section 12
Contact: IETF COSE WG
Author/Change controller: IESG
--
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
