On 2023-10-27, at 18:52, Michael Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that's premature. For one thing, > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter-00.html > hasn't reached WGLC. I wouldn't suggest blocking draft-ietf-lake-edhoc from > becoming an RFC until draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers also becomes an > RFC.
I completely agree. The easiest way to not imperil lake-edhoc is to not change its registration while it is in the RFC editor queue. > We can keep making progress on multiple useful things for the CBOR/COSE/CWT > ecosystems largely in parallel. There's a specific synchronization point for > draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers and draft-ietf-lake-edhoc because of > the shared IANA registration, which Francesca correctly pointed out. As I mentioned, I’m not sure it should be shared, because the semantics differ. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
