John Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 can totally live with this.
(I still think we give the ITU X-cmte way too much credit)
> 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.
Good... "make it so"
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
