Or maintain a CBAR/CBAPT dictionary for relevant subset instead of hard-wired number-string mapping (may be also centralized as such registry on your link to 6.40000 registration) and you often will get less than 5 bytes.
Essentially known-values are just another way to specify a compact encoding for long type string, like JSON-LD does for URIs, so a generic (semantic) compaction framework like CBAPT can replace many wheels reinvented again and again in protocols, leaving only thin amount for them to define. -- WBR, @nuclight On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 05:13:15 -0700 Wolf McNally <[email protected]> wrote: > Or you can just use known values. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/22k65alB3pa6xWo4Fc2qbyMyHus/ > > ~ Wolf > > > On Apr 16, 2025, at 5:01 AM, Vadim Goncharov <[email protected]> > > 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? > > > > -- > > WBR, @nuclight > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CBOR mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
