I think there are cases when it is use full to have the tag (maybe few) and I think the draft is clear enough in discouraging the usage when not needed.
“Its use is optional, and is intended for use in cases in which this information would not otherwise be known.” To write code that supports unwrapping the tag is very easy. Finally I personally think it is good to have the tag for completeness. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > The type of location where it might show up is where one does a value > that is placed in an array where it can be either an A or a B and you use > the tag to distinguish between the two options. This can be very useful in > those cases. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:32 PM > > To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> > > Cc: Mike Jones <[email protected]>; Jim Schaad > > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 21:30, Hannes Tschofenig > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > For the cost saving of one byte we are essentially introduction > options > > here. I am wondering whether this byte is worth it. > > > > Two bytes. > > > > It’s not really an option, as in every context there will be a single > right way to > > do this. > > But yes, there are naked and tagged CWTs now. > > > > (If we only define the tagged version, very quickly there will be specs > that > > define a “compressed CWT” that just leaves out those first two bytes…) > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > Ace mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
