Hi Laurence, I hope that the CBOR WG takes good note of these observations:
> On 2021-12-15, at 22:28, Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]> wrote: > > - CDDL seems just fine for protocol messages > - CDDL is missing some pieces when combining CDDL-defined protocols (name > spaces, a publication and reference mechanism) Right, and that is what the 2.0 work is trying to address (at least partially). Workarounds do exist. > - CDDL is missing some pieces for specifying encryption payloads and maybe > draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct is not using what is available now for > signing/MAC Indeed. Some of this could be added easily by defining control operators in drafts that need extended functionality for CDDL. Some of this is just conventional usage that simply needs to be worked out. I’m sure the CBOR WG is interested in doing just that, and the COSE WG should be interested, too (with the caveat that this must not slow down current publication processes). A separate document that describes how to best use CDDL with COSE would be optimal, but simply defining the CDDL conventions needed inside a spec that uses CDDL also works. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
