Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> I simply would like for the constrained voucher document to make a
> statement about the use of the COSE content type field. I have no
> strong opinions by now as to what it should say, but i would like our
> RFCs not to be underspecified and leave implementers guess about use of
> fields, leading to possibly more complex interop matrixes.
Already done.
> My sugestion for the constrained voucher text is:
> Constrained vouchers (application-type/voucher-cose+cbor, TBD3)
> SHOULD NOT use the COSE header "content type" field because the
> encoding is never "ambiguous" according to RFC8152 Section 3.1. If a
> constrained voucher contains this field, it MUST be ignored by the
> processing described in this document.
I don't think that this is useful to add.
"Unknown headers are ignored"
--
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
