Re: [Rats] New RATS

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ned, Simon,

I agree on making the extensions to the EAT type system standards-track
only, as suggested by Laurence.  I also agree on your point of clearly
stating the requirements for registration.

On this specific point:

> Simon Frost <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Smith, Ned <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > It seems there should be conventions for how to extend at a top
> > level socket? For example, MUST/MUST NOT an extension begin with a
> > CBOR global tag and MUST there be a registered content type
> > definition? And should global tagging disambiguate the content that
> > is intended to be used as Evidence (or some other conceptual message
> > type envisaged by the RATS Architecture)?
>
> It would be a sensible rule that a top level socket extension MUST
> start with a global tag & be relatable to an expected content type
> (provided that doesn’t complicate the identification of the normal
> CWT/JWT use case). This should only be a precursor to subsequent
> access to evidence claim set(s).

Just noting a couple of things WRT requiring tagging:
* tagging does not work with JSON-based
* making CBOR-based extensions tag-only would go counter the current
  definition of EAT-CBOR-Token, which also has untagged variants
* when using an outer media type / content format tagging is redundant

cheers, t




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.