On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:03:07AM -0800, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > 1. CWT is derived from JWT (RFC 7519) using CBOR rather than JSON for encoding. > The rationale as explained in the document is related to efficiency for some > IoT systems. The initial claims registry defined in Section 9.1 is identical > (semantically) with the initial claims registry defined in Section 10.1 of RFC > 7519. Is this parallelism supposed to continue? If the two registries will > continue to evolve in parallel, maybe there should be a mechanism at IANA to > make this happen. Was this discussed by the WG? Maybe there is a need to > include some text about the relationship between the two registries. The shepherd writeup includes a note to the IESG recommending that there be overlap between the experts for the CWT and JWT registries: Since near-total overlap is expected between the CWT and JWT registry contents, overlap in the corresponding pools of Experts would be useful, to help ensure that the appropriate amount of overlap between the registries is maintained. So I expect that the right thing will happen in practice, though you're probably right that having some text in the document itself (and the registry template as well) would be a good safety net. -Benjamin
