On Nov 2, 2023, at 23:02, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: > > I suggest we tackle these issues in a separate document. I’m fine with that, as long as that document can make retroactive BCP14 statements :-) (*) The CCS in the payload is entirely different from one in the header: The CCS in the payload is the focus of the signed/encrypted/mac'ed statement. The CCS/CWT in the header can only be supplementary information to what is in the payload. How does that supplementing affect the entire construct? Mike proposed using typ to supply this information. But then it really needs to. Grüße, Carsten (*) OK, there is precedence in RFC 8725 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
