It was pointed out to me that the sentence below ended abruptly (thanks Ludwig)
"On the other hand it is not relay necessary to have it there, the reason for the mapping registries is to avoid CBOR label/key conflicts between attributes. So information about" It should be On the other hand it is not relay necessary to have it there, the reason for the mapping registries is to avoid CBOR label/key conflicts between attributes. So information about major type can just as well be kept in the specification defining the mapping. //Samuel On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Samuel Erdtman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > When writing the IANA mapping sections for the ACE framework and CWT I > first required registrations to include the CBOR major type, Later I did > not (e.g. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-02#section-10.7). > I would like to here the preferences of the group so that we can update > mapping registries to have the same format. > > The benefit of having the CBOR major type in the registry is that one then > has more of the important information in one place. > > On the other hand it is not relay necessary to have it there, the reason > for the mapping registries is to avoid CBOR label/key conflicts between > attributes. So information about > > In COSE (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-msg-13) it is > included "value This contains the CBOR type for the value portion of the > label." > > I would vote to keep data in registries at a minimum, i.e. exclude CBOR > Major type from there. > > Opinions? > > Best regards > //Samuel > > >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
