On Nov 2, 2023, at 18:58, lgl island-resort.com <lgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2) Publish with warnings I’m not a big fan of including “to implement this specification, you must read it, and all the other specifications that might be relevant for your application” with every RFC. > (and add errata for COSE and JOSE?) Well, that is a bogeyman; there is nothing that the WG got wrong here that calls for an errata report. Now that we are done with “warnings”, I still believe this inclusion is not usable without saying what the cwt is supposed to *do*, its “semantics". So saying something like »“typ” or another header field needs to supply the semantics for this syntactical device« seems necessary. (*Good design* would then be to include the cwt-in-headers with the field that defines its semantics, but that is not *necessary*. It may come in helpful when you suddenly need two of them, with different semantics.) Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
