See this thread for background: - https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/123#pullrequestreview-1537381740
Summarizing for folks who won't read the above link. There are several work items at W3C that depend on structured suffixes draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes/ The include: https://github.com/w3c/did-core - requests `did+ld+json`. https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model - requests `vc+ld+json`. Also a quick note that the W3C Tag has an open issues related to this topic: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/239 The problem we are having is that it is not clear how multiple suffixes apply to envelope formats, like JOSE and COSE. For example: Should it be `application/vc+ld+json+jwt` or `application/vc+ld+jwt` (because JWT always secures a JSON claimset and a JSON header). Similar question for COSE, should it be `application/vc+ld+json+cose` ? We know that it can't be `application/vc+ld+cwt` because CWT secures CBOR claimsets. It would be excellent to add specific language to the draft to address this, particularly because of the JWT BCP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8725#section-3.11 And because we intend to try to address this topic consistently for COSE in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-cose-typ-header-parameter/ It was previously requested to address this confusion here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/Y420Rte4_ZDFWaP_kldawEUvC_I/ I would like to see specific language added to address one of the most popularly used structured suffixes in the registry today "+jwt". Regards, OS -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
