Actually I did file a formal IANA request already after doing the informal mediaman list review.
After some discussion the conclusion was that it would be better to request it via an I-D document instead of just the email to IANA. Another conclusion was that the SSS registration procedure as defined now is ambiguous and it was in practice operating as "specification required" over the past years. My plan was also to ignore the MSSS work for now and use only a single suffix. Esko ________________________________ From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 09:12 To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Cc: Esko Dijk <[email protected]>; Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21.txt On 20. Jul 2023, at 00:57, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: >> * Is application/voucher-cose+cbor a correct name? Yes. Whether a coucher+cose would be more desirable, I don’t have an opinion on. If it is, please do request the registration. Firing off a request to a random mailing list is not sufficient; iana has to know about it. >> https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/264 > -> proposal is to change name to application/voucher+cose and register > -> '+cose" as a structured syntax suffix. A request has been informally > -> approved by mediaman WG; and it was decided to include the formal > -> request in the draft since that's the best procedure for it. As a cose WG “member”, I feel it is slightly weird for anima to register that. But you don’t need a draft, I think; a (correctly!) filled in registration template sent to IANA should trigger the expert review. Just copy Section 11.3.1 of RFC 9052 into the template in Section 6.2 of RFC 6838, making as few mistakes as possible, and send it in via https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment > Was it actually informally approved? I didn't know. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/media-types/?gbt=1&index=JxzT03Dhe7Nt8cPAfjbDx3WVQRM The whole nested SSS stuff (let me call it NSSS) is a nice intellectual exercise, but I’m not sure it is very relevant. I think we can ignore NSSS for now. (I’m sure going to propose using +json+cbor once NSSS is available, as per Section 6.2 of RFC 8949 :-) Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
