tagged-cmw-record about draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap HOT 6 CLOSED

I think it would be convenient for this I-D to allocate a CBOR tag for tagged-cmw-record.
E.g.: tagged-cmw-record = #6.TBA(cmw-record)

from draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.

Given a use case for an attestation results or other message that conveys other CMs that are relevant to a particular attestation result. Does it make sense to continue following the convention of using tagged cbor - as in:

tagged-cmw-record = #6.4711(bytes .cbor cmw-array)

A possible triple record structure that treats other CMs as triple objects might be:

ar-triple-record = [ 
     attester: stateful-environment-map,
     ar-claims: [ + $ar-claims-type-choice ] 
]
$ar-claims-type-choice /= tagged-cmw-record

The argument against is that cmw-array already has tagged values and the little bit of CDDL inside of ar-claims: isn't enough to warrant needing a CBOR tag. The argument for is that all $ar-claims-type-choice possibilities are expected to be tagged-xxx values that can be dispatched by a parser dispatcher following a consistent convention.

In the context of a triple's object type choice, I think it makes total sense to add the extra tag.

from draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.

Did this issue get resolved?

from draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.

Did this issue get resolved?

The question is who should be responsible for registering the tag:

• CMW itself, or
• the spec using CMW

(For the record, I am fine either way.)

from draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.

quick note: this tag is to be used only for the CBOR array- and CBOR tag-based serialisations.

from draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.

Fixed in #33

from draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.