Hi Carsten, On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 07:21, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2025, at 15:35, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So, given the ambiguity surrounding the encoding of COSE_X509 > > Can you explain the “ambiguity”?
I am referring to the "definite or indefinite-length encoding?" raised by John M and MCR. See [1] [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ikZNnmGzFBF8sYQTq7jQNmXZk68/ > So far, nothing restricts the encoding, so any well-formed CBOR can be used. > Is there a reason to want this to be different? > If you are talking about Section 9 of RFC 9052, please read again: No, they are referring to the definition of COSE_X509 in §2 of RFC9360. cheers, t > > 9. CBOR Encoding Restrictions > > This document limits the restrictions it imposes on how the CBOR > Encoder needs to work. The new encoding restrictions are aligned > with the Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements specified in > Section 4.2.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94]. It has been narrowed down to the > following restrictions: > > * The restriction applies to the encoding of the Sig_structure, the > Enc_structure, and the MAC_structure. > > * (...The actual restrictions...) > > The three structures are used for creating signing inputs, not for any data > that goes over the wire. > > Grüße, Carsten > _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
