Re: [media-types] [Anima] do we need +jose?

[Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>]

Update to my previous email: as I learnt now the registration of a +suffix in the SSS registry doesn't require that the registered name is an existing media type name. (Example: +der)
So +jws could be registered with the registration fields pointing to RFC 7515 "application/jose+json" as the reference.  

It could also be named +josejson or +jose-json then ? Not as nice as +jws but at least more relatable to the original media type name.

Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: Esko Dijk 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 16:38
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Anima] do we need +jose?

> should really be doing:
>        application/voucher+jws

Because "application/jws" does not seem to be an existing media type, it would be strange to use "+jws". 
Looking at draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-06: what it really uses is the "JWS JSON Serialization" which has the "application/jose+json" media type. This is not the "application/jose" type, so it would be strange to use "+jose" as your subject suggests.
Now given that we shouldn't use multiple structured syntax suffixes in concatenation at this moment, the only option for the suffix media type at this moment looks to be "+json".

(Or alternatively we would need a new spec that defines the "application/jws" media type - not advisable it seems, adds to confusion.)

So we can have names like e.g.:

     application/voucher-jose+json
     application/voucher-jws+json

In the cases above the "+json" at the end isn't wrong, because it actually is JSON.  (For the earlier case of "application/voucher-cms+json" it was wrong as you say, because the CMS envelope isn't actually JSON.)

Esko


IoTconsultancy.nl  |  Email/Teams: [e-mail] 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anima <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 20:51
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [Anima] do we need +jose?


Hi, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher/
is in WGLC, and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm/ depends upon it.

In anima-jws-voucher, we defined:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-06.html#name-application-voucher-jwsjson

        Type name:  application
        Subtype name:  voucher-jws+json

which is in alignment with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8366.html#section-8.3
where we defined:
      Type name:  application
      Subtype name:  voucher-cms+json

probably this was a mistake!  (JSON in a CMS envelope)

I think, based upon discussion about +cose and our other documents, that we
should really be doing:
       application/voucher+jws

While jwt is given as a structured suffix in the IANA registry, jws is not.
I'm not entirely sure if this matters... we are dealing with JWS, not
tokens...

Please advise.  While we have lots of running code (since 2018) for voucher-jws, it's a
change we could probably make via Postel Principal.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide