I should clarify that my objection is to a working group IF a JOSE->CBOR
mapping is trivial enough, and if it's not trivial due to CBOR having a
different data model from JOSE, well, then there's Phillip's I-told-you-
so.
Also, COSE is predicated on constrained devices ("class 1"), and some
thought convinces me that it is true that [at least a profile of] CBOR
is easier to implement than JSON, but mostly that's a function of a)
being able to use base-2 number representations on the wire, and b) not
having to escape/unescape strings. Decimal<->IEEE754 conversions are
easily the trickiest part of any decent JSON parser/encoder, so I'm
quire prepared to believe that CBOR is easier to implement on class 1
constrained devices.
Now, looking again at the WG proposal, there are deliverables that go
beyond merely mapping JOSE onto CBOR, so perhaps there is enough work
for a WG. Therefore I retract my opposition.
Nico
--