Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

From: Laurence Lundblade Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:06 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Ace Wg ; cose Subject: Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt? In a CBOR thread it became clear (to me anyway) that in the context of CBOR a “tag" is not a prefix, badge, ident

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

; > > > From: Laurence Lundblade <mailto:l...@island-resort.com>> > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 10:58 AM > To: Jim Schaad mailto:i...@augustcellars.com>> > Cc: cose mailto:c...@ietf.org>>; Ace Wg <mailto:ace@ietf.org>> &

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

From: Laurence Lundblade Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 10:58 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: cose ; Ace Wg Subject: Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt? On Aug 14, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Jim Schaad mailto:i...@augustcellars.com> > wrote: From: La

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > From: Laurence Lundblade > > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 1:59 PM > To: Jim Schaad mailto:i...@augustcellars.com>> > Cc: Ace Wg mailto:ace@ietf.org>>; cose > > Subject: Re:

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

From: Laurence Lundblade Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 1:59 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Ace Wg ; cose Subject: Re: [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt? Here’s a series of scenarios that I think are legal CWT. These are allowed by RFC 8392, right? 1) Explicitly tagged, no

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

Here’s a series of scenarios that I think are legal CWT. These are allowed by RFC 8392, right? 1) Explicitly tagged, no external type info needed - Has CWT tag - Has COSE type tag 2) CWT identification by label, COSE type tagged - The CWT is a CBOR data item with a label. The definition of the

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

> On Aug 10, 2020, at 5:49 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > This is all based on my understanding that the surrounding protocol for must > specify exactly when CBOR tags are to be used and when they are not to be > used and that the surrounding protocol must not leave it as an optional >

Re: [Ace] [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt?

From: COSE On Behalf Of Laurence Lundblade Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:25 PM To: Ace Wg ; cose Subject: [COSE] Gap in registration of application/cwt? It doesn’t seem clear what the CBOR tagging requirements are when application/cwt is used to indicate a message is a CWT. This