Hi all, Thanks for the updates; they look good!
Before I kick off the IETF LC, I just have two things I wanted to double-check (we may not need a new rev before the LC): (1) In Section 3.2 (Representation of an Asymmetric Proof-of-Possession Key), the last paragraph is a somewhat different from the main content, in that it mentions using "COSE_Key" for an encrypted symmetric key, analogous to the last paragraph of Section 3.2 of RFC 7800. I had wanted to see some additional discussion, but we agreed that this was analogous to RFC 7800 and we did not need to go "out of parity" with it on this point. So we should be able to go ahead without new text here, but did we want to explicitly refer back to that portion of RFC 7800 to make the connection clear? (2) In https://github.com/cwt-cnf/i-d/pull/27/files we removed a large chunk of text since it contained several things that are inaccurate. The only things that were removed that I wanted to check if we should think about keeping was the note that the same key might be referred to by different key IDs in messages directed to different recipients. What do people think about that? Thanks, Ben On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:59:18PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A new version (-07) has been submitted for > draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-07.txt > > Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed > > > The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession/ > > Diff from previous version: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-07 > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the diff is available at tools.ietf.org. > > IETF Secretariat. > _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
