I think it would be a significant missed opportunity to not share the
registration and the definition. Multiple independent parties invented nearly
the same thing and Francesca was right to call this out. The edhoc use case is
a profile of the general facility. I believe the plan Francesca outlined to be
a good one.
I'd be glad to talk with you about any of this in person in just over a week.
:-)
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: Francesca Palombini <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [COSE] [IANA #1284212] expert review for
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers (cose)
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
