Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> So the question is: where should the CDDL for a CWT go? Here’s the main
options I can think of:
>>> - EAT
>>> - UCCS
>>> - CWTbis (a revision of CWT to include CDDL)
>>> - Some other new standard
>>> - no where, never create it
>>
>> I'd say that it should go into RFC8152bis. (bis-bis. There is another
german
>> term here).
> ??
Isn't there a word for "thrice", which rarely used?
I mean RFC8152bis-bis here.
>> It's still in AUTH48 right now. Maybe an appeal to put it in
>> could occur in cose@
>>
>> If it too late for that, then in an errata, or another document.
> There is no errata.
> There is a missing feature — making it easy to interact with the COSE
specification via CDDL.
> Missing features are addressed in new documents, not in AUTH48.
> Certainly not in AUTH48 if there is considerable leeway for designing
> it and nothing in the original document depends on it.
I agree that it's probably too late.
Documents have been extracted out at AUTH48 before and returned to the WG
when the WG realized that events had overtaken.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
