On Dec 16, 2021, at 7:18 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Laurence Lundblade wrote:
>> For example, I find what CoSWID does awkward:
>> - Replicating code and definitions generally seems poor practice
>> - It excludes the possibility for encryption
>> - It doesn’t define what EAT needs, a
Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> For example, I find what CoSWID does awkward:
> - Replicating code and definitions generally seems poor practice
> - It excludes the possibility for encryption
> - It doesn’t define what EAT needs, a signed or unsigned message that
> is always a
Hi Laurence,
I hope that the CBOR WG takes good note of these observations:
> On 2021-12-15, at 22:28, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
>
> - CDDL seems just fine for protocol messages
> - CDDL is missing some pieces when combining CDDL-defined protocols (name
> spaces, a publication and reference
I guess for me this thread is about the state of the art for use of CDDL.
- CDDL seems just fine for protocol messages
- CDDL is missing some pieces when combining CDDL-defined protocols (name
spaces, a publication and reference mechanism)
- CDDL is missing some pieces for specifying encryption
{noticing this is not CC'ed to SUIT or SACM or RATS}
Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> I am observing how two different protocols that use COSE specify what the
COSE payload should be. I am interested because EAT must specify this too. I
noticed that they do it different:
> — CoSWID goes to
On Dec 8, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>
> PS: I am not sure whether the ".cbor control" is an important concept in this
> conversation.
It is absolutely critical and central to the topic I brought up. It is the only
thing I wanted to talk about.
But, happy for you to
, 2021 2:27 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Laurence Lundblade ; cose ;
c...@ietf.org; Henk Birkholz
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CDDL for COSE + EAT/CWT + SUIT + CoSIWD
Hi Hannes,
> On 2021-12-08, at 13:46, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> I suspect Laurence is sending this email beca
: Re: [Cbor] CDDL for COSE + EAT/CWT + SUIT + CoSIWD
Hi Hannes,
This is only about a tiny little part of the EAT spec and is not important for
EAT publication.
This is only about how to use CDDL with COSE. It’s not about interoperability
or what claims there are in the EAT spec.
Hannes, you
t: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 1:37 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: Laurence Lundblade ; cose ;
> c...@ietf.org; Henk Birkholz
> Subject: Re: [Cbor] CDDL for COSE + EAT/CWT + SUIT + CoSIWD
>
> On 2021-12-08, at 13:30, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>
>> EAT by itself
nnes Tschofenig
> Cc: Laurence Lundblade ; cose ;
> c...@ietf.org; Henk Birkholz
> Subject: Re: [Cbor] CDDL for COSE + EAT/CWT + SUIT + CoSIWD
>
> On 2021-12-08, at 13:30, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>
>> EAT by itself is not really an interoperable spec. COSE on it
the EAT spec.
Ciao
Hannes
-Original Message-
From: Carsten Bormann
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Laurence Lundblade ; cose ;
c...@ietf.org; Henk Birkholz
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CDDL for COSE + EAT/CWT + SUIT + CoSIWD
On 2021-12-08, at 13:30, Hannes
On 2021-12-08, at 13:30, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> EAT by itself is not really an interoperable spec. COSE on its own is not
> interoperable either.
If I guess about the definition of "interoperable spec” you are using here,
ASCII is not an interoperable spec either - you still have to
12 matches
Mail list logo
