On 20. Jul 2023, at 00:57, Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote: >> * Is application/voucher-cose+cbor a correct name?
Yes. Whether a coucher+cose would be more desirable, I don’t have an opinion on. If it is, please do request the registration. Firing off a request to a random mailing list is not sufficient; iana has to know about it. >> https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/264 > -> proposal is to change name to application/voucher+cose and register > -> '+cose" as a structured syntax suffix. A request has been informally > -> approved by mediaman WG; and it was decided to include the formal > -> request in the draft since that's the best procedure for it. As a cose WG “member”, I feel it is slightly weird for anima to register that. But you don’t need a draft, I think; a (correctly!) filled in registration template sent to IANA should trigger the expert review. Just copy Section 11.3.1 of RFC 9052 into the template in Section 6.2 of RFC 6838, making as few mistakes as possible, and send it in via https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment > Was it actually informally approved? I didn't know. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/media-types/?gbt=1&index=JxzT03Dhe7Nt8cPAfjbDx3WVQRM The whole nested SSS stuff (let me call it NSSS) is a nice intellectual exercise, but I’m not sure it is very relevant. I think we can ignore NSSS for now. (I’m sure going to propose using +json+cbor once NSSS is available, as per Section 6.2 of RFC 8949 :-) Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
