On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> So to bikeshed the whole thing, please comment on preference in naming:
>
> 1) RFC8366: CMS-signed-JSON vs JSON-in-CMS.
> 2) CV: CMS-signed-CBOR vs CBOR-in-CMS.
> 3) CV: COSE-signed-CBOR vs CBOR-in-COSE.
> 4) future ID: JWS-signed-JSON vs JSON-in-JOSE.
>
> I note that for some of these "signed" is redundant.
> We do not have COSE-signed-JSON, or JWS-signed-CBOR.
>
> Which feels more natural to you?
>
For me, all the $foo-signed-$bar expansions make sense and they stress
the signature aspect:
CMS-signed-JSON = Cryptographic Message Syntax signed
JavaScript Object Notation
CMS-signed-CBOR = Cryptographic Message Syntax signed
Concise Binary Object Representation
COSE-signed-CBOR = CBOR Object Signing and Encryption signed
Concise Binary Object Representation
JWS-signed-JSON = JSON Web Signature signed
JavaScript Object Notation
The $foo-in-$bar alternative somehow stresses containment but I assume
the primary reason for using CMS / COSE / JWS is for signatures, not
for containment.
/js (German, in case that matters.)
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
