Re: [Secdispatch] Request for discussion of Concise IDs in Prague

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 17, 2019, at 21:41, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> A side discussion and meeting(*) was held a while ago to determine a
>> good solution; this side meeting came up with ACE and CORE as two
>> leading candidates: ACE because it already did CWT (which, however,
>> already was a bit of an odd addition to its charter), and CORE,
>> because it is interested in having such a profile available and has
>> the requirements (but is not itself a security area WG).
> 
> I had asked why not CBOR WG, and it might be useful to share your answer.

The CBOR WG is really more concerned with the integrity of the CBOR standard itself and with the CDDL notation for structural interoperability (“syntax”).  Concise IDs are an application of CWTs and COSE, which are in turn an application of CBOR.  Concise IDs are much closer to the applications that the CoRE WG is looking at, than to features and functions of CBOR (or CDDL).

In the end, of course, the parties interested will come to whatever WG that runs the process; I would just imagine that with CoRE (and possibly ACE) quite a few of the interested parties would already be there, and the WG as a whole will be more in a position to provide its collected expertise in this area.

Grüße, Carsten