Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 5:50 PM Michael Richardson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Name: application/cwt +suffix: +cwt References: rfc8392 Encoding >> considerations: CBOR is always encoded as binary Interoperability >> considerations: None Fragment identifier considerations: N/A Security >> considerations: as per RFC8392 Contact: IETF COSE WG Author/Change >> controller: IESG >> >> (I was writing an ID for this, then realized that application/cwt was >> already a thing, and that all we needed was a suffix, which is Expert >> Review)
> We already have it in
>
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-02.html#section-6.1,
> which is a handy place if we need a stable reference for the
> registration.
Yeah, I had looked at that awhile ago, but I did forget about it.
I don't think its accurate to put it there, and I think it needs to reference
RFC8392 not an EAT document. And we can do it with Expert Review.
If you want to keep it there, then let's do that.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
