Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Richardson <[email protected]> writes:
>> That tells us that it might be CBOR.
>>
>> It does not distinguish a CBOR encoded certificate from a CBOR encoded
>> RFC8366 artifact, for instance.
> Uh, yes? They're both CBOR, right? It's still the magic number for
> CBOR.
> Do you mean to say, you want a place in CBOR to place a magic number
> that describes the particular kind of CBOR structure this is?
Yes.
> If so,
> you should make that clear right at the start of the I-D. Indeed, in
> the Abstract, though it needs other work, too. Checking again, it
> looks like you don't really lay that out until section 6, whereas I
> only read it through section 5. My mistake, but lots of other people
> will make it as well.
Better wording suggestions welcome.
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
