ping, any thoughts on this? //Samuel
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Samuel Erdtman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
