Thanks. I did not know that trick and will try it out. I will be curious to see if the result works relative to the "first rule defines the semantics of the entire specification" requirement in Appendix C of RFC8610 (I am guessing not given this spec has three top level structures). It was encountering that rule this morning that made me ask this question. The CDDL validators I tried (including yours) enforce that rule. So validating a subcomponent, for example, is not possible without having a CDDL file per validation target (vs having a validator that just walks the rules in a CDDL file and reports if a match was found).
On 2/2/23, 11:46 AM, "Carsten Bormann" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 2023-02-02, at 17:42, Carl Wallace <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Are there any plans to include a consolidated CDDL section (or three) in > draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert? At present the definitions are scattered > throughout the document. Generally we can get this by extracting the CDDL from the XML, e.g., via XPath: //sourcecode[@type='cddl']/text() See Section 1.4 of RFC 9052 [1]. But having them collected in an appendix also works. (As long as that is done in an automated way…) Grüße, Carsten [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052#name-cddl-grammar-for-cbor-data- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052#name-cddl-grammar-for-cbor-data-> _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
