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

[Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>]

> I'm guessing this is the CMS structure to which you're referring?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8366#section-5.4

Correct.

> ... but then there seems to be an update in the works that looks like
> JSON to me (updating 8366?):
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher#name-voucher-artifact-with-json-

The "Updates 8366" still needs to be removed there - it will rather base upon 8366-bis.
This update intends to add an alternative security envelope, JWS, instead of CMS - for the same Voucher data.

> ... and both of them are claiming "application/voucher-cms+json"? I'm
> confused about what is going on there. Is there a one paragraph
> summary of what the end-state is expected to be?

The media type is currently stated as "application/voucher-jws+json" - see first introduction paragraph.
I'm assuming this is correct as the outer envelope appears to be JSON (Section 3.1 defines this).
There was a long discussion about using "voucher+jws" or other names instead: 
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-jws-voucher/issues/7

The end goal of this work is to have one "Voucher" data model, that can be presented in both JSON and CBOR, and signed in multiple ways (e.g. CMS, COSE, JWT i.e. JOSE, ... )
The reason for multiple formats is just preference of implementers within a particular application domain/context. Interoperability across domains is not required.
Kind of like a digital bazaar of formats ;-)

Esko