[Rats] Re: [IANA #1434605] expert review for draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap (cbor-tags)

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chris,

On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 at 22:15, Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 at 18:11, Christian Amsüss <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello authors and RATS list,
> >
> > (taking a CBOR tag allocation DE request to you for confirmation of my
> > reading)
> >
> > I'm having a hard time finding in this document where the tag requested
> > in 10.4 would be used. It refers to 3.1/3.2/3.3, but those sections
> > refere to the  RFC9277 based tags that happen automatically with the
> > registrations in 10.7 are referenced.
> >
> > I'd be tempted to call 10.4 a relic of switching over from dedicated
> > tags to 9277 ones, but the use of 9277 in this document predates section
> > 10.4 (the former has been in there since the individual -00, when IANA
> > considerations were almost empty).
> >
> > Did I miss where the tag of 10.4 (CPA907) is used? If so, please help me
> > understand this. If not, I think the course of action would be to
> > retract 10.4.
>
> You are probably right. CPA907 would become redundant once IANA give
> us the 4 new CoAP Content-Formats
> At that point, we could use the tags derived via 9277’s TN().

Following up on the topic. I have created a PR [1] that removes the
registration and adds a subsection to the C-F registration section
that explicitly mentions the TN-derived tags.
Please check if it works.

cheers, thanks!

[1] https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/257