Hi ACE,
I have only some nits on the CWT draft (see below).
/Ludwig
========================================================
I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation
(I've seen both):
--
E. Wahlstroem
-- OR
E. Wahlstroem
(no affiliation)
--
===
2. Terminology
In the RFC 2119 boilerplate I noticed that only MUST, MUST NOT and NOT
RECOMMENDED is used in the draft. What is the recommended procedure
here? It feels like we could remove the other ones.
===
"CWT Claims Set
The CBOR map that ..."
Why is a map called a set here? I know what is meant, but it sound
really weird.
===
Sections 3.1.*
The links to sections in JWT point to sections in this draft instead
(at least in the html-ised version of the draft).
See:
https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfcFAQ.html#anchor18
for hints on how to fix this.
===
Figure 1: Perhaps indicate the CBOR major type number together with the
"Value type" text.
===
--
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
Security Lab, RISE SICS
Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
