Smith, Ned wrote:
>> As I mentioned before, the multiple suffixes draft might not
>> land... So it would be better to avoid multiple plus
>> I was following your lead from earlier in the thread.
the advice I got verbally last week was to use as specific a +thing as
possible.
So +cwt
Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> I think the main goal for EAT is to allow a general EAT handler to know
> if EAT is CBOR/CWT or JSON/JWT. Either “eat+cbor” or “eat+cwt” will do
> that. Probably “eat+cwt” is better because it is more specific.
An EAT handler will need to process
as per RFC6838:
Name: application/cose
+suffix: +cose
References: STD96
Encoding considerations: CBOR is always encoded as binary
Interoperability considerations: None
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Security considerations: as per STD96
Contact: IETF COSE WG
Author/Change controller:
Esko Dijk wrote:
>> So I just don't know what to do, but I think we what have done is
>> wrong.
> What we have now is "application/voucher-cose+cbor", which is not wrong
> I think. There's currently no rule saying your media type needs to be
It's not wrong, but it's not
