Right, as an example, the COSE signature of the CBOR voucher format (where the
CBOR is defined in 8366bis), is defined in a separate document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher#name-signing-voucher-and-voucher
So the design is currently to have the signature formats separately specified.
Esko
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 18:37
To: anima@ietf.org
Subject: [Anima] Re: [anima-wg/anima-jws-voucher] Address artart review
comments (PR #15)
Matthias Kovatsch <notificati...@github.com> wrote:
> Seeing the artart review by Jim Fenton, I felt inspired to improve some
> things given my recent work on the BRSKI-PRM draft. This PR should
> address all comments except the question, why it is not part of
> 8366bis.
My take on this is that:
1) we've put one signature format per document, which makes review easier.
This also makes it easier to say what specification is required.
2) jws in theory can apply to 8366, but the argument to merge it all is
understood.
3) I'd consider removing CMS from 8366bis :-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
