> should really be doing:
> application/voucher+jws
Because "application/jws" does not seem to be an existing media type, it would
be strange to use "+jws".
Looking at draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-06: what it really uses is the "JWS
JSON Serialization" which has the "application/jose+json" media type. This is
not the "application/jose" type, so it would be strange to use "+jose" as your
subject suggests.
Now given that we shouldn't use multiple structured syntax suffixes in
concatenation at this moment, the only option for the suffix media type at this
moment looks to be "+json".
(Or alternatively we would need a new spec that defines the "application/jws"
media type - not advisable it seems, adds to confusion.)
So we can have names like e.g.:
application/voucher-jose+json
application/voucher-jws+json
In the cases above the "+json" at the end isn't wrong, because it actually is
JSON. (For the earlier case of "application/voucher-cms+json" it was wrong as
you say, because the CMS envelope isn't actually JSON.)
Esko
IoTconsultancy.nl | Email/Teams: esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl
-----Original Message-----
From: Anima <anima-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 20:51
To: media-ty...@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org
Subject: [Anima] do we need +jose?
Hi, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher/
is in WGLC, and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm/ depends upon it.
In anima-jws-voucher, we defined:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-06.html#name-application-voucher-jwsjson
Type name: application
Subtype name: voucher-jws+json
which is in alignment with
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8366.html#section-8.3
where we defined:
Type name: application
Subtype name: voucher-cms+json
probably this was a mistake! (JSON in a CMS envelope)
I think, based upon discussion about +cose and our other documents, that we
should really be doing:
application/voucher+jws
While jwt is given as a structured suffix in the IANA registry, jws is not.
I'm not entirely sure if this matters... we are dealing with JWS, not
tokens...
Please advise. While we have lots of running code (since 2018) for
voucher-jws, it's a
change we could probably make via Postel Principal.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
