Well, I was a bit terse, was I. I really meant to address the CWT-like structures, not everything that is ever encoded in CBOR. If it doesn’t feel like a claim set, then of course there is no point in mimicking CWT.
Grüße, Carsten > On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:45, Olaf Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> writes: > >> +1 for making all the CWT-like structures into real CWTs. > > Not every key/value-pair encoded as CBOR is automatically a CWT. What > happens here is that we are trying to force every protocol element that > is required to solve an application-specific problem to fit into > existing registered OAuth elements. As already pointed out by Mike, this > does not work well because ACE is different from vanilla OAuth. > > The best solution I can imagine to conserve precious number space is to > use the media type (Content-Format in CoAP) as differientiator and use > CWT-numbers only for things that are CWTs > > Grüße > Olaf > > _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
