Re: [Cbor] [Rats] Combining CBOR protocol libraries

I’ve made an update to the manifests and swevidece EAT claims here <https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/eat/pull/102> that requires byte string wrapping. It also puts tags to use for kind of a full solution for identifying and handing off sub-protocol in the CBOR context. It goes like this:

If the sub-protocol is CBOR based (e.g. a CoSWID), then wrap it in a byte string and rely on the sub-protocol tag for dispatch to the correct handler.

If the sub-protocol is NOT CBOR based (e.g. and XML SWID), then contain it in a tagged byte string and again use the tag for dispatch.

In the first the tag is the contents of the byte string wrapping and in the second the byte string is the contents of a tag.

Note that I’m using the word “tag” here to mean the tag number AND tag content. I believe the at is the correct use of the tag in the CBOR context, even though it is counter intuitive.

(I also plan to eventually allow QCBOR to return raw encoded CBOR for arrays and maps to be able to implement protocols that don’t add the byte string wrapping layer)

LL

> On May 21, 2021, at 12:16 AM, Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> On 20/05/2021, 22:10, "Laurence Lundblade" <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
>> So which is the better practice, byte-string wrapping for protocols or
>> a requirement on your better CBOR decoders?
> 
> From an IETF perspective, what we can do to make protocol composition
> easier is to do as you suggested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 