profile or eat_profile?

[laurencelundblade]

This doc refers to both "profile" and "eat_profile". EAT itself uses both terms, the first for the CBOR claim and the second for the JSON claim (because "profile" is already registered in JWT).

I think we either need to fix EAT so it just uses "eat_profile", or explain the mixing of terms in this document.

[henkbirkholz]

If we want that consistency, I agree that this problem ports back to the EAT I-D.

[laurencelundblade]

It is the way it is in EAT for a reason. It's not just a sloppy error.

It is to be consistent with all the other EAT claims that don't start with "eat_".

[thomas-fossati]

sure, I didn't question that :-) I did 👍 since renaming it to eat_profile in CBOR is just cosmetic change, so it seems quite cheap.

[thomas-fossati]

@laurencelundblade can this be closed?

[laurencelundblade]

EAT is now consistent and uses only "eat_profile". Should this draft name the Optional parameter "eat_profile" to be consistent?

[thomas-fossati]

all media type names we define start with application/eat-. To me that seems to provide enough context to avoid ambiguity; it also stutters less. That said, if you are keen on consistency I am not opposed to prepend eat_.

[henkbirkholz]

eat_profile seems consistent to me.

[thomas-fossati]

ok, consistence beats minimalism then :-)