Hi Anders, To be honest, your draft needs to be filled in a lot more to convince us of anything.
Also, I've got complaints about some parts of COSE and other IETF standards, but not so much about COSE signatures. They seem reasonably universal to me. LL ________________________________ From: Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 7:27 AM To: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Cc: CBOR <[email protected]>; cose <[email protected]> Subject: [Cbor] Re: [COSE] New I-D: draft-rundgren-universal-cbor-00 Since there is no interest in discussing these topics in a more constructive way, I might as well finish with https://www.json.org/fatfree.html. This is (IMO) how you obtain ubiquity (=universal). It is OK (indirectly) claiming that Universal CBOR is c**p and its author is a charlatan. However, Universal CBOR is [currently] the only show in town. Hashing "raw" (non-wrapped [*]) CBOR is not a mystery and enveloped signatures are featured in PDFs. Anders *] Linguistic issue: I managed confusing "unwrapped" and "non-wrapped". Fixed in -02. On 2025-03-04 10:04, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2025-03-04, at 09:06, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> The core is a profile of CBOR as defined by RFC 8949, designed to fit a >> specific (but very big) "market”. > > First of all, we don’t seem to have consensus we need a “profile”. > Second, if we do need another one, this profile should be explained in terms > of the CBOR documents we have; you seem to have an aversion to that. > And the spec certainly should not claim to be “universal”. > > Grüße, Carsten > _______________________________________________ CBOR mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
