Change:
Discussion today in COSE on how to do RPK by value in EDHOC. Suggestions to send a COSE_Key or a C509. Additional suggestion from Carsten to use CWT. Several issues in the old GitHub on CWTs, that were not transfered to the new GitHub: URL URL URL Discussion to transfer CWT in kid, in Auxilery data, and as COSE header parameter. Transfering CWT is related to issues , , ,
I made a pull request for this URL I think it is essential that EDHOC supports CWT. CWTs are much more flexible than X.509 / C.509. I think both are needed. The need for CWT has been discussed since 2016. I think it was decided clear quite early that transporting CWT is needed but was a discussion on how to transfer them. In Aux Data, in COSE header parameter, or in the kid bstr. For some reason nothing was ever specified. TLS WG is discussing to add support for CWT. URL I think certificates and CWT needs to be included, I am not sure that we need a different format for RPK. Likely CWT or C509 can be used for this purpose.
I think it should be discussed if CWT is good enough for the . My initial understanding is that it is but this needs to be analyzed and discussed. My current thoughts. CWT needs to be supported in EDHOC. Most things in CWT is optional, it is likely an optimized enough format for the oportunistic / TOFU use case of "RPK". CWT is also very flexible. When CWT exist it would be strange to standardize a new format for transfereing a COSEKey unless it is really really needed to save bytes. CWT + Deterministic CBOR could maybe replace the discussion on how to integrity protect COSEKeys. We should at least remove the new subjectname from the COSEKey part in the EDHOC document. CWT and C509 can be used when subject name is needed. Does "Raw" COSE_Keys that are not CWT even need to be supported? Or would CWT / C509 / X.509 be enough
This change has now been done in the master branch, see a1b25ba and commits in its vicinity. Can we close the issue?
This has now been addressed.

Discussion:
9.5. <ins> This document registers the following entries in the "COSE Header Parameters" registry under the "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)" heading.  The value of the 'cwt' header parameter is a CWT RFC8392 or an unprotected CWT Claims Set I-D.ietf-rats-uccs. 9.6. </ins> IANA has added the COSE header parameter 'kid2' to the COSE Header Parameters registry.  The kid2 parameter may point to a COSE key common parameter 'kid' or 'kid2'.  The kid2 parameter can be used to identity a key stored in a "raw" COSE_Key, in a CWT, or in a certificate. <del> 9.6. </del> <ins> 9.7. </ins> IANA has added the COSE key common parameter 'kid2' to the COSE Key Common Parameters registry. <del> 9.7. </del> <ins> 9.8. </ins> IANA has added the well-known URI 'edhoc' to the Well-Known URIs registry.

Related information: None <del> 9.8. </del> <ins> 9.9. </ins> IANA has added the media type 'application/edhoc' to the Media Types registry.

Change Controller: IESG <del> 9.9. </del> <ins> 9.10. </ins> IANA has added the media type 'application/edhoc' to the CoAP Content-Formats registry.

Reference: [[this document]] <del> 9.10. </del> <ins> 9.11. </ins> IANA has created a new registry entitled "EDHOC External Authorization Data" under the new heading "EDHOC".  The registration

Description, and Reference, where Value is an integer and the other columns are text strings. <del> 9.11. </del> <ins> 9.12. </ins> The IANA Registries established in this document is defined as "Expert Review".  This section gives some general guidelines for what