On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:10:13 +0200 Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2025-04-16 14:01, Vadim Goncharov wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 05:32:53 +0200 > > Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Based on Carsten's input, CBOR Core now refers to embedded signatures. > >> This is also the definition used for PDF files which is a major > >> application using embedded signatures. Embedded signatures is a logical > >> choice for designs where the document/message/application is king. > >> > >> What's missing is a unique label for the embedded signature object, like > >> simple(88). Having an application-defined label is certainly not a > >> showstopper but it would be cool being able to write > >> > >> sign(applicationObject) > >> > >> rather than > >> > >> sign(embeddedSignatureLabel, applicationObject) > > > > Why it have to be simple() value instead of a tag? > > Of course a tag works as well but a tag seems more natural when there is an > argument. Anyway, I got this idea from SD-CWT that uses a simple() as a > label with a specific meaning. I fear such approach will lead to quick exhaustion of simple()'s. For universal meaning like "here was a real value but it's now undefined (coding error) or redacted (censored)", this can be established in common сognitive apparatus, as something with same meaning for all applications. For specific label... I doubt. -- WBR, @nuclight _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
