Hi Carsten! > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:06 AM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> > Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > draft-ietf- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-x509-07: (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > On 2020-10-21, at 04:58, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Section 2. Where is the uri (CCDL) syntax/format/data type (used by x5u and > > x5u-sender) defined? > > The draft references RFC 3986. > > It could be more explicit in saying that the URI as defined in RFC 3986 is > represented as a CBOR text string; it is indeed unfortunate that the tables > use > the term “uri” which is the name given by RFC 8610 Appendix D to the CDDL > prelude type for Tag 32 (uri = #6.32(tstr)).
Exactly. The drafts cites the syntax of the URL with RFC3986, but it does not state the CBOR data type -- this was the simple clarification I was looking for. The name collision is definitely unfortunate. Regards, Roman > > Is this covered by CBOR tag=32? > > Tag 32 would be a way to mark the text string as a URI at the CBOR level (the > definitions of Tag 32 in RFC 7049 as well as draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis both also > reference RFC 3986). > However, the addition of the tag is not needed here, as the labeled parameter > (x5u/x5u-sender) already provides the URI semantics. > (One convention to signify the use of an unadorned text string with URI > semantics in CDDL would be “~uri”.) > > Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
