I would argue that it does not really mean anything. The fact that Object is basically repeated twice in the expansion is an artifact of trying to get something pronounceable but no something that makes sense. If we were going for something that made sense, I would argue that CSE would be more reasonable as it does not duplicate the object of CBOR. COSE was chosen as much to parallel with JOSE as anything else but those specs are JWE and JWS not JOSE.
Maybe we should start from scratch and build a new acronym that makes sense and stop using COSE. (By the way, I note that CBOR is not on https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt so you might want to ask the RFC Editor to add it.) Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 4:03 PM > To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> > Cc: 'Justin Richer' <[email protected]>; 'Kepeng Li' <kepeng.lkp@alibaba- > inc.com>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-cose-msg-13.txt > > Jim Schaad wrote: > > Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Object Signing and > > Encryption (COSE) > > That is pretty funny :-) > > The RFC editor has not insisted on expanding the term "JSON" in titles such as > > JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). > > I hope we can do the same for CBOR. > > But COSE is a new abbreviation to be introduced by this very RFC, so that > indeed > should be expanded. (If its expansion means something; e.g., SOAP famously > doesn't any more.) > > Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
