On Friday, 27 October 2017 10:38:13 PDT Nash, George wrote:
> I missed that the UUIDs are doubly encoded. I may add that issue to the
> list. UUID can be send as 128 bytes no need to encode the string when it
> already has a standard encoding. One of the major arguments for CBOR is
> size if we ar
D.
George
-Original Message-
From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org
[mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 6:41 PM
To: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
Subject: Re: [dev] Questions about json2cbor tool from the secu
On Thursday, 26 October 2017 06:03:41 PDT Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 03:40, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> > Also note that COSE requires that the protected maps also conform to the
> > canonical format (RFC 7049 section 3.9), but our map doesn't.
>
> Actually, COSE doesn’t require t
On Oct 26, 2017, at 03:40, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> Also note that COSE requires that the protected maps also conform to the
> canonical format (RFC 7049 section 3.9), but our map doesn't.
Actually, COSE doesn’t require that.
The fact that we didn’t want to require canonicalization of the ma
Correct
From: Nash, George [mailto:george.n...@intel.com]
Sent: 25 October 2017 19:45
To: Wouter van der Beek (wovander) ;
iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
Subject: RE: Questions about json2cbor tool from the security tools folder
Wouter,
Is the swag2cbor.py the package that does the conversion?
On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:21:54 PDT Nash, George wrote:
> Summary of issues:
> Issue #1: Nesting cbor within cbor
Unfortunately, we're not alone. COSE (RFC 8152) also does that.
I'm not sure why we've done it, but I can tell you COSE's reasoning: the
portion of CBOR stored inside a CBOR Byt
Wouter,
Is the swag2cbor.py the package that does the conversion?
George
From: Wouter van der Beek (wovander) [mailto:wovan...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:38 AM
To: Nash, George ; iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
Subject: RE: Questions about json2cbor tool from the security tool
Regarding Issue #1 cbor does have a way to indicate that cbor-in-cbor:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049#section-2.4
tag 24 Encoded CBOR data item
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049#section-2.4.4.2
I tested this out on our data in cbor.me
Replace the part of indicating the length of the cbor
Hi George,
Where in the spec it says that the doxm contains cbor within cbor?
Just going over the definition (raml file) for doxm:
https://github.com/openconnectivityfoundation/security-models/blob/master/schemas/oic.r.doxm.json
then it just defined as an regular json object... which should be map
