Jim Schaad wrote: > I would argue that it does not really mean anything. The fact that Object is > basically repeated twice in the expansion is an artifact of trying to get > something pronounceable but no something that makes sense. If we were going > for something that made sense, I would argue that CSE would be more > reasonable as it does not duplicate the object of CBOR. COSE was chosen as > much to parallel with JOSE as anything else but those specs are JWE and JWS > not JOSE.
CWS and CWE would not make that much sense *). (I also don't know why we'd need multiple initialisms for what is essentially a single format.) I'm actually very comfortable about the O (Object) in the name, as COSE can be used for what is widely called Object Security. > Maybe we should start from scratch and build a new acronym that makes sense > and stop using COSE. It seems most people here are quite happy with the name. It also has been publicized a bit already. And the analogism with JOSE is quite useful. > (By the way, I note that CBOR is not on > https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt so you might want > to ask the RFC Editor to add it.) So far there has been no need to do this, as no other RFC (besides RFC 7049, which is defining the abbreviation) has had CBOR in the title yet. Indeed, this RFC would be the occasion where we make this request. Grüße, Carsten *) Yeah, we now could be arguing about CWT, but that is another WG's job :-) _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
