> What about for voucher-request+cose? Did we settle on anything there? > I think that I used .vrq, but I don't know if we should standardize that.
The voucher request introduced by RFC 8995 reuses the exact same application/voucher-cms+json media type, and filename extension as well (.vcj), while adding some syntax and semantics. Then it forgot to update the IANA media types registry with a link to "[RFC 8995]". So what draft-RFC8366-bis and also cBRSKI is doing, is the same approach: re-use the media type and the extension (.vch) for the Voucher Request. Except for the forgetting-the-link bit: section 11.3 in draft-RFC8366-bis fixes that! Multiple file extensions are allowed, so we could add .vrq (besides .vch) to the list of extensions in the cBRSKI registration request, if that's useful. Esko -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 16:22 To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]> Cc: Orie Steele <[email protected]>; cose <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [COSE] Intended IANA registration of "+cose" media type suffix / cBRSKI Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Each media type that wants to use +cose would need to indicate what > file extension it wants to use. This could be “.cose” or “.cbor” I > think if nothing more specific is wanted. For application/voucher+cose, > it is “.vch”. What about for voucher-request+cose? Did we settle on anything there? I think that I used .vrq, but I don't know if we should standardize that. -- 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
