It seems like this is in hand, but FYI, in EAT, we want to use ccs to bring the 
“eat_profile” 
claim<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-eat-22.html#name-eat_profile-eat-profile-cla>
 up from the CWT Claims-Set to the top level so that dispatch of the EAT 
processing can be done before processing COSE. It is possible that COSE is 
providing encryption making it a lot of work to access the “eat_profile" claim. 
 The “eat_profile" is kind of a sub-type mechanism in EAT.

LL


On Oct 27, 2023, at 10:03 AM, Michael Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to