If one wanted to include a draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress-06 compressed certificate in a COSE object using draft-ietf-cose-x509, would I use an existing tag? I can see that with x5u, that there would be a mime type and negotiation that could determine whether or not to send the compressed certificate.
But for the rest, we need something. Probably, a new x5bag equivalent? Or, it could be that each member (or single item) of the x5bag could have a tag. In that case, I think that maybe x509-08, should define a tag for uncompressed PKIX certificate? Should draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress-06 extend draft-ietf-cose-x509, or should draft-ietf-cose-x509 reference cert-compress (probably normative). On the topic of draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress-06, since we've spent at least two entire virtual interims on it, shouldn't it get adopted already? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
