Hi Murray.
The CDDL isn't part of the normative definition of the parameter. It's
informative content to help developers who are familiar with CDDL.
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 6:57 AM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-10: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be that I'm unfamiliar with this aspect of COSE, but I note that Section
2 says:
"The following is a non-normative description for the value type of the CWT
claim header parameter using CDDL [RFC8610]."
It's curious to have a Standards Track document with only a non-normative
description of the thing it purports to standardize.
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
