Hi Michael,
At 01:21 PM 04-04-2024, Michael Richardson wrote:
We in ANIMA have been struggling because we have an artifact, a voucher
(YANG defined in RFC8366, being revised/extended in 8366bis), which can be in
two major formats: JSON and CBOR (in theory, XML too), but can be signed by
three formats (CMS, JWS, COSE).
That gives us three major variations today:
1) application/voucher-cms+json aka voucher+json+cms?
2) application/voucher+cose or? voucher+cbor+cose?
3) application/voucher-jwt+json aka voucher+json+jwt?
(because CMS signing CBOR seems dumb, as does mixing {JSON,CBOR} X {JWS,COSE})
We didn't know if we should resort to multiple suffixes or not, and the lack
of apparent progress on this has been a pain. So, thank you for the decision
as it takes the options off the table, I guess, even if I'm bit surprised by
it.
My quick reaction is that using those variations is a bad idea. The
good news is that I cannot prevent the working group from moving
forward with the registration.
The policy perspective is that someone will have to go through the
registry, submit a policy change and figure out how to move it forward.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
