Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

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

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

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

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

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

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

workshop on this topic, I think! Pity that April 1st has just passed :( Esko -Original Message- From: Michael Richardson Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 17:06 To: Esko Dijk ; c...@ietf.org; r...@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types Esko

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

Dijk , Michael Richardson , Thomas Fossati , Thomas Fossati , cose , rats , "anima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [COSE] [Rats] [Anima] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types Per the JWT BCP, regarding typ. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8725#name-use-explicit-typing The +jwt suffix goes o

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

that’s just XML – can display it. > Do I know “svg” ? No. > End result: display the object in my XML viewer. > > (Using here "image/svg+gzip+xml" would lead to incorrect results clearly.) > > Esko > > From: Orie Steele > Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 02:09

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

if the suffixes draft commented on cases where digital signatures might interact with suffixes, including commenting on +jwt and +cose. > > Esko > > > > *From:* Orie Steele > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 4, 2023 02:09 > *To:* Smith, Ned > *Cc:* Laurence Lundblade ; E

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

Esko Dijk wrote: > As you said also the following would be possible today: > application/voucher+ysid > if we register 'ysid' as being CBOR-YANG-SID that's included in a COSE > wrapper. I find this less useful than the first options of '+cbor' or > '+cose' , it seems

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

2:09 To: Smith, Ned Cc: Laurence Lundblade ; Esko Dijk ; Michael Richardson ; Thomas Fossati ; Thomas Fossati ; cose ; rats ; anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [COSE] [Rats] [Anima] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types Per the JWT BCP, regarding typ. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8725#name-use

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

seems too specific. Esko -Original Message- From: Anima On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 21:10 To: c...@ietf.org; r...@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types Orie Steele wrote: > At IETF 116 t

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

Richardson , > Thomas Fossati , Thomas Fossati < > tho.i...@gmail.com>, "c...@ietf.org" , "r...@ietf.org" < > r...@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" > *Subject: *Re: [COSE] [Rats] [Anima] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types > > > > Inline: > &g

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

t 3:21 PM To: "Smith, Ned" Cc: Laurence Lundblade , Esko Dijk , Michael Richardson , Thomas Fossati , Thomas Fossati , "c...@ietf.org" , "r...@ietf.org" , "anima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [COSE] [Rats] [Anima] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types Inline: On Mon,

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

e a monolith. > > > > *From: *Laurence Lundblade > *Date: *Monday, April 3, 2023 at 12:44 PM > *To: *Orie Steele > *Cc: *"Smith, Ned" , Esko Dijk < > esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl>, Michael Richardson , > Thomas Fossati , Thomas Fossati < > tho.i

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

Laurence Lundblade wrote: > I’m not sure identifying something as COSE, or even CWT is that useful > because there’s no standard for the key material and key identification > that cuts across all uses of COSE or CWT. Knowing that it's COSE, a dissector can know: 1) it's an array

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

homas Fossati , "c...@ietf.org" , "r...@ietf.org" , "anima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [COSE] [Rats] [Anima] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types I’m not sure identifying something as COSE, or even CWT is that useful because there’s no standard for the key material and key identif

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

t;c...@ietf.org <mailto:c...@ietf.org>" > mailto:c...@ietf.org>>, "r...@ietf.org > <mailto:r...@ietf.org>" mailto:r...@ietf.org>>, > "anima@ietf.org <mailto:anima@ietf.org>" <mailto:anima@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [COSE] [

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

Orie Steele wrote: > At IETF 116 this draft was discussed: > - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes - > https://youtu.be/BrP1upACJ0c?t=1744 > TLDR; there is work in progress to define multiple suffixes, and how > they are interpreted. Right, I read

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

G semantics. > > > (Now converting the constrained Voucher format into a CWT based format > would certainly be possible; but that's probably not the discussion > intended by these slides.) > > > Regards > Esko > > > PS more detailed info at > https://github.com/anim

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

Cc: Esko Dijk , Michael Richardson , Thomas Fossati , Thomas Fossati , "c...@ietf.org" , "r...@ietf.org" , "anima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [COSE] [Rats] [Anima] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types At IETF 116 this draft was discussed: - https://datatracker.ietf.or

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

t; > > Regards > Esko > > > PS more detailed info at > https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/264 < > https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/264> > https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/263 < > https://gith

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:51 PM Laurence Lundblade wrote: > > This is about whether EAT should use “+cose” perhaps in addition to “+cwt” > right? No, I just wanted to send a heads-up to COSE who are (I think) the main reference / owners for this. > The current proposal is "application/eat+cwt”

Re: [Anima] [COSE] [Rats] cose+cbor vs cwt in MIME types

This is about whether EAT should use “+cose” perhaps in addition to “+cwt” right? The current proposal is "application/eat+cwt” LL > On Mar 23, 2023, at 8:50 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote: > > On 13/03/2023, 18:10, "Thomas Fossati" tho.i...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > >