IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] [media-types] Fwd: Thoughts on suffixes, single and multiple

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 April 2024 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152C5C151070; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 04:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u7UC-c4qcAHx; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 04:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7032C14F61C; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 04:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC82F3898B; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:30:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RJRu0H-SzTTn; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:30:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E817138988; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1712316600; bh=kEh21rtUTB/beDaz6hRrsUGWjzyks/DQ7fqin9eb8dc=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FwGwpcuK/xkBZk438mbHSVG+aDKfnEkGn4UhgO1bU8PtQAEVlGWh6dD0jfmalXp43 mIYE04mHrhgeBc6rQo6cahU7WJiTkFcNbJ1SRosZsQUut/xIyJR2e0rJOExqwcetE8 0F34orrDV8+5DQpIL7VbTZjxj2Bvfk3AhOuLYZlMCpQwAqjDzmlUqDhMw11m61mBFv lxB+WkiXtZof6qWQLu7GNXdELZ4UrDaQSLjphMFLSJYybcomeyr45J/S7aF7VEhStJ ZuS/PVqQE9c1NtaWIAwtex7xNCchnvuvdFDW4TZitp4paVzkwUQ+YrLfcciTuvw40a 6kpjALGFfJbuw==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A444C50; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Jones <michael_b_jones@hotmail.com>, "media-types@ietf.org" <media-types@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR02MB74395275F1DCDEAA8B61F40FB73C2@SJ0PR02MB7439.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <2E20FEDE-C766-43EE-A6E2-1FB63E79CF0B@mnot.net> <CAN8C-_JWg8MOOwxo-yxASO5K8nkS9ADOvOJoAGEV2Mxxae6YAQ@mail.gmail.com> <1810.1712262101@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <SJ0PR02MB74395275F1DCDEAA8B61F40FB73C2@SJ0PR02MB7439.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 07:30:00 -0400
Message-ID: <32546.1712316600@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/hYBKbS9UFpOfmfd_PJSQ2aUXGms>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [media-types] Fwd: Thoughts on suffixes, single and multiple
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 11:30:08 -0000

Michael Jones <michael_b_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Michael R., you wrote:
    >> 1) application/voucher-cms+json aka voucher+json+cms?

    > I don't think these make sense since CMS is X.509 - not JSON.  You
    > could reasonably use application/voucher-cms or
    > application/voucher+cms.

CMS signed JSON is in RFC8366.  It's useful to people who have a CMS library
that has gone through FIPS, but not a JWS or COSE library.  This was more
important in 2016 when the spec ws written.

    >> 2) application/voucher+cose or? voucher+cbor+cose?

    > application/voucher+cose would make sense.  I don't think the +cbor
    > adds anything useful here.

I agree, I don't think it adds anything.

    >> 3) application/voucher-jwt+json aka voucher+json+jwt?

    > Neither of the above make sense.  JWTs are sequences of
    > base64url-encoded characters separated by periods.  They are not JSON.

Neither is image/svg+xml+gzip actually XML, until you decode the GZIP.

    > application/voucher+jwt would make sense.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email