Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote:
>> We already are registering application/voucher-cose+cbor in section
>> 13.5.1 We fit voucher-request into the same content. (that's
>> distinguished by the SID values)
> So that is also a COSE-Sign1 payload? (Too lazy to check, sorry.)
Yes.
>> I think you are overthinking this. And we transport
>> constrained-vouchers with that MIME type over HTTPS between Registrar
>> and MASA. And we use it in the Accept: header.
> But these are all protected vouchers, so they don’t need the additional
> media type, right?
Additional to voucher-cose+cbor? No.
> (When I say “additional media type”, this of course also could be a
> content-type parameter, “; protected=no” or some such. Still need a
> second content-format number.)
Ah, then definitely no.
(We had an unsigned voucher request, but we axed it in 2019)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
