Re: [Rats] EAT I-D language for old interoperability

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 7:08 PM Smith, Ned <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Using `oid` in the JSON section is confusing because the json cdd doesn't ever use `oid` only `json-oid`.
>
> The cbor use of `oid` doesn't reference RFC9090. Whereas the equivalent JSON text references [RFC2252].

hmm, I look at §7.2.1 and see:

   For CBOR-encoded tokens, OIDs are specified using the CDDL type name
   "oid" from [RFC9090].

which looks good to me.

Then un §7.2.2 it says:

   [...] the
   following CDDL types are encoded in JSON as follows:
   [...]
   *  oid -- MUST be encoded as a string using the well established
      dotted-decimal notation (e.g., the text "1.2.250.1") [RFC2252].

So "oid" is still intended as the CDDL type defined in §6 of RFC9090
which, when serialized to JSON uses dotted-decimal notation.  Again, a
pretty decent explanation :-)

You are right that there's a lack of linkage with json-oid though.