Carsten:
The way i see it, the underlying issue seems to be that most IETF specs that
use JSON seem to be happy in specifying their JSON objects without formal
specification of their JSON objects in CDDL.
For example, i walk through the list of drafts/RFCs referencing RFC7515
(JSON Web
On 18. Jul 2023, at 17:38, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> In the JWS I-D, we have some JSON that is an example.
> And the content within is BASE64URL encoded.
> We could, I think, describe this in CDDL, but we aren't trying to be
> authoritative. (It's a JOSE example)
OK, CDDL describes
On 19. Jul 2023, at 03:41, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/pdf/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control-07
Apologies, that was the previous one, now RFC 9165.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control/
We have .b64u and .json; maybe these need to be
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/pdf/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control-07
Sent from mobile, sorry for terse
> On 18. Jul 2023, at 17:38, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> In the JWS I-D, we have some JSON that is an example.
> And the content within is BASE64URL encoded.
> We could, I think,
My 2cent as individual contributor:
I like the use of the BASE64URL notation without apostrophes better,
because as you said, it could be pefect javascript (considering
javascript as the ideal template language for JSON).
Then again, we did introduce the pseudovalue "base64encodedvalue=="
in
In the JWS I-D, we have some JSON that is an example.
And the content within is BASE64URL encoded.
We could, I think, describe this in CDDL, but we aren't trying to be
authoritative. (It's a JOSE example)
We are struggling with quoting. We could write:
"payload":
