On 2016-06-20 13:47, Justin Richer wrote:
It’s both, really. I don’t think the other title is descriptive. We need to expand COSE, since we define it, but we don’t need to expand CBOR, since that’s already defined by another RFC. You don’t see other RFC’s expanding HTTP except for the HTTP RFC’s, for example, so your argument below is a bit extreme in making the alternative look absurd. The title should be:CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
I have a slight preference for this one, since it follows the patterns of the JOSE specs:
"JSON Web * (JW*)" and as Justin said in his introductory presentation at IETF 93: "What would JOSE do?" /Ludwig -- Ludwig Seitz, PhD SICS Swedish ICT AB Ideon Science Park Building Beta 2 Scheelevägen 17 SE-223 70 Lund Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51 http://www.sics.se
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
