I am leaning towards a complete set of CDDL definitions in an Appendix
for lazy humans like me. Ultimately, it is up to the editors and WG how
to do it. If we want more structured guidance on how to structure things
in general, I'd be happy to join that conversation.
On 02.02.23 17:53, Carl Wallace wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
