Re: [Cbor] Reviews and shepherd for draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2024-04-11, at 15:27, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> JWT-JWS = text .join ([
>             b64u<jwt-headers>, ".",
>             b64u<jwt-payload>, ".",
>             b64u<jwt-signature>])
> b64u<B> = text .b64u B
> jwt-headers = text .json jwt-headermap
> jwt-headermap = { * text => any } ; simplified
> jwt-payload = bytes
> jwt-signature = bytes

This proposal didn’t address the fact that .json describes a text string, but b64u<B> requires bytes.  Better:

JWT-JWS = text .join ([
             b64u<jwt-headers>, ".",
             b64u<jwt-payload>, ".",
             b64u<jwt-signature>])
b64u<B> = text .b64u B

jwt-headers = '' .cat jwt-headers1
jwt-headers1 = text .json jwt-headermap
jwt-headermap = { * text => any } ; simplified

jwt-payload = bytes
jwt-signature = bytes

(This uses .cat as a conversion method between bytes and text, please see [1].)

This could be beautified some more, but does show the principle.

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9165.html#section-2.2-2