Hi, I think it is good to have a discussion regarding the name and terminology.
I think “CBOR encoded X.509 Certificates” with some suitable abbreviation would fit both type 0 and 1. Both use CBOR for encoding and both follow RFC 5280 (X.509) except when it comes to DER encoding. As long as the DER<->CBOR encoding is one-to-one it is easy to see that the security of type 0 and type 1 are equal. I am not against changing the term “CBOR certificate” and saving that for something else that has nothing with RFC 5280 to do, but I do not understand the previous comment to move type 0 to another document. Given a specification of type 1, type 0 follows trivially. /John -----Original Message----- From: COSE <[email protected]> on behalf of Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 04:42 To: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Göran Selander <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [COSE] "CBOR Certificates" Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12. Feb 2021, at 19:59, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> compressed > But they aren’t compressed. abridged then. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
