> It is not: the REST-level (here CoAP) Content-Type is the media-type of the > whole thing Thanks, I overlooked this aspect. That implies that the parameter should, instead of 'TBD3' what I thought, describe 'voucher in cbor' for which there is no CoAP cf defined. I assume that the number would then fallback to CBOR cf=60, which is true (it is 'plain CBOR' even though a specific thing - voucher request - is encoded in that CBOR). I don't see much benefit in including a COSE parameter 'content type = 60' into the COSE container to be frank. A Registrar will anyhow try to decode the payload as CBOR and if that fails, it returns 4.00.
From RFC 8152 and draft-8152-bis I don't see that 'content type' is a mandatory header parameter. The SHOULD requirement for it doesn't apply to our case. (And probably this SHOULD requirement is too vague, if it ought to apply to our case.) Maybe draft-8152-bis text could be updated if me and Michael understand it wrongly? Toerless was also in favor of including the parameter in our case. > No, no, no… You just created busywork for interoperability testing. The idea was not to test additional payload formats (like 18); I just do this to let the server be liberal in what it accepts. Technically a cf=18 is not wrong here. But agree we don't want to specify any additional format options. You're right that for current interop testing, to find the bugs, it is better to *not* be too liberal. Further reasons were that TBD3 was not yet defined during the testing past years; and that I have some legacy Pledges that use cf=18 still. Esko -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 02:48 To: Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> Cc: Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de>; draft-ietf-anima-constrained-vouc...@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher COSE confusion > >> Now, there is in the COSE header also a parameter paramaeter called "content >> type" > > In my implementation I don't use the 'content type' header in COSE because it > is duplicate. It is not: the REST-level (here CoAP) Content-Type is the media-type of the whole thing (as packaged in COSE-Sign1), while the COSE content-type is just the media-type of the payload. Except in somewhat unlikely cases, these are not the same. > For example my servers should also accept content-format 18 just as TBD3. No, no, no… You just created busywork for interoperability testing. Please decide for one option here and stick with that! Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
