Orie Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > At IETF 116 this draft was discussed:
> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes -
> https://youtu.be/BrP1upACJ0c?t=1744
> TLDR; there is work in progress to define multiple suffixes, and how
> they are interpreted.
Right, I read through mediaman-suffixes.
I got the feedback that we should use the most specific type available.
>> Luckily because COSE is just "plain CBOR" itself , we can use the
>> subtype '+cbor'. So having "voucher-cose+cbor" would be fine. Also
I don't understand why it's not application/voucher+cose+cbor.
The outer encoding is cbor, the next layer is cose.
There is the a third layer which is `yang-core`.
(It seems that we ought to call this "ysid"? or maybe +cst. )
+cwt is also three layers: CBOR, COSE, and then CWT claims inside the signed
part. So, if we'd call it application/eat+cwt, then we ought also call it
application/voucher+ysid
It seems that we ought to have registered +ysid in RFC9254.
Can we do it in draft-ietf-core-sid-20?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
