It’s both, really. I don’t think the other title is descriptive. We need to expand COSE, since we define it, but we don’t need to expand CBOR, since that’s already defined by another RFC. You don’t see other RFC’s expanding HTTP except for the HTTP RFC’s, for example, so your argument below is a bit extreme in making the alternative look absurd. The title should be:
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) or: COSE: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Either style is fine with me. You seem to be the only one arguing for the other title, which tells me that there’s not consensus to change the name away from COSE as stated on the working group description page, charter, and everywhere else to date: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cose/ As such, please use one of the two titles above. Thank you, — Justin > On Jun 19, 2016, at 6:31 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, there are two possible reasons for that statement. The first is you just > think that the title that I like is a worse title. The second is following on > from Carsten's mail which says that we need to expand acronyms. If it is the > latter, then the correct title of the document is: > > COSE: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Object Signing and > Encryption. > > Or > > Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Object Signing and Encryption > (COSE) > > Of those two titles, I prefer the second and it does not try to be prose but > is just the expansion. > > Jim > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Justin Richer [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 1:23 PM >> To: Kepeng Li <[email protected]>; Jim Schaad >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [COSE] FW: New Version Notification for >> draft-ietf-cose-msg-13.txt >> >> I agree with Kepeng and others on the title: "COSE: CBOR Object Signing and >> Encryption". >> >> -- Justin >> >> >> On 6/18/2016 9:34 AM, Kepeng Li wrote: >>> Just some questions for clarification. >>> >>> 1. About the document title, COSE: A Message Based Security Solution >>> for CBOR, why don’t we use something like this: COSE: CBOR Object >>> Signing and Encyption specification? >>> >>> 2. Section 13, section title is just "keys“, should we be more specific? >>> Maybe it is too genetic to say just keys. We have talked about keys in >>> several sections. We need to diffentiate this section with other >>> places from the title. >>> >>> 3. Section 17, "implementation status“, this is an informative section. >>> Should we move it to appendix? >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> Kepeng >>> (Individual) >>> >>> 在 17/6/16 3:18 pm， "Jim Schaad" <[email protected]> 写入: >>> >>>> This draft responds to the vast majority of the last call comments >>>> that have been received. Mail about outstanding issues was sent at >>>> the time the pull requests were created but no responses have been >>>> received. >>>> >>>> I believe that any remaining issues could be treated as IETF last >>>> call comments or can be dealt with as the same time that AD comments >>>> are dealt with. With this in mind, I would request that the chairs >>>> review the document for advancement. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:10 AM >>>>> To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-cose-msg-13.txt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-cose-msg-13.txt has been >>>>> successfully submitted by Jim Schaad and posted to the IETF >>>>> repository. >>>>> >>>>> Name: draft-ietf-cose-msg >>>>> Revision: 13 >>>>> Title: COSE: A Message Based Security Solution for CBOR >>>>> Document date: 2016-06-17 >>>>> Group: cose >>>>> Pages: 115 >>>>> URL: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cose-msg-13.txt >>>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-msg/ >>>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-msg-13 >>>>> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-msg-13 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is data format designed >>>>> for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the >>>>> ability to have the basic security services defined for this data >>>>> format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encyption >>>>> (COSE) specification. This specification describes how to create and >>>>> process signature, message authentication codes and encryption using >>>>> CBOR for serialization. This specifiction additionally specifies how >>>>> to representat cryptographic keys using CBOR. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >>>>> tools.ietf.org. >>>>> >>>>> The IETF Secretariat >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> COSE mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> COSE mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > > _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
