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”?
> 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:
That you are citing this in confusion is part of the small confusion.
Thomas says that he doesn't want to do this in RATS msg-wrap.
So it has to be a new COSE RFC.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
