Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:03:07AM -0800, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> 
> 1. CWT is derived from JWT (RFC 7519) using CBOR rather than JSON for encoding.
> The rationale as explained in the document is related to efficiency for some
> IoT systems. The initial claims registry defined in Section 9.1 is identical
> (semantically) with the initial claims registry defined in Section 10.1 of RFC
> 7519. Is this parallelism supposed to continue? If the two registries will
> continue to evolve in parallel, maybe there should be a mechanism at IANA to
> make this happen. Was this discussed by the WG? Maybe there is a need to
> include some text about the relationship between the two registries.

The shepherd writeup includes a note to the IESG recommending that
there be overlap between the experts for the CWT and JWT registries:

  Since near-total overlap is expected between the CWT and JWT
  registry contents, overlap in the corresponding pools of Experts
  would be useful, to help ensure that the appropriate amount of
  overlap between the registries is maintained.

So I expect that the right thing will happen in practice, though
you're probably right that having some text in the document itself
(and the registry template as well) would be a good safety net.

-Benjamin