Re: [Ace] [COSE] Call for adoption for draft-wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token-00

Or keep the CBOR Web Token (CWT) for two major reasons:
- To show the very close relationship to JWT. It relies heavily on JWT and
it's iana registry. It is essentially a JWT but in CBOR/COSE instead of
JSON/JOSE.
- I would not say that JWT is the only format that works for the web, and
it's even used in other, non-traditional, web protocols. That means I don't
have a problem with the W in CWT at all. Why would JSON be the only web
protocol?

Then we also have one smaller (a lot smaller) reason, it's the fact that it
can be called "cot" just like JWT is called a "jot" and I figured that our
"cozy chairs" would very much like that fact because then it's essentially
a "cozy cot" :)

/ Erik

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:

> We can also call it the “COSE Token”. As a chair of the COSE working
> group, I’m fine with that amount of co-branding.
>
>  — Justin
>
> > On May 9, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> >
> >> draft-ietf-ace-cbor-token-00.txt;
> >
> > For the record, I do not think that ACE has a claim on the term "CBOR
> > Token".  While the term token is not used in RFC 7049, there are many
> > tokens that could be expressed in CBOR or be used in applying CBOR to a
> > problem.
> >
> > ACE CBOR Token is fine, though.
> > (Or, better, CBOR ACE Token, CAT.)
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > COSE mailing list
> > COSE@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> Ace@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>