> On 17. Dec 2021, at 23:54, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
ter. But that’s more of a French thing than German. >>> 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. Nothing in COSE is overtaken. This missing feature (of the specification, not of what is specified) is irking us when we put specs on top of COSE, but the COSE standard works fine without it. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
