Well I understand better — this is JSON formatted inputs / outputs for a test suite used by COSE-C?
But still… What is a COSE_Sign0? Everywhere I look, I see it is a deprecated name for a COSE_SIgn1. Shouldn’t the examples here look like the examples in RFC 8152? Should this use a new style for examples? LL > On Oct 10, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote: > > No that would be the format that I use in the examples with all of the inputs > as well. You should just use the cbor_diag field, and read section 8 of the > CBOR draft for how multiple lies are done. > > From: COSE <cose-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:cose-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf > Of Laurence Lundblade > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:05 PM > To: Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com <mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com>> > Cc: Roman D. Danyliw <r...@cert.org <mailto:r...@cert.org>>; Ivaylo Petrov > <iva...@ackl.io <mailto:iva...@ackl.io>>; Ben Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu > <mailto:ka...@mit.edu>>; cose <cose@ietf.org <mailto:cose@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03 > > >> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com >> <mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com>> wrote: >> >> This appendix provides an example of a COSE full message signature >> and an example of a COSE_Sign0 message. The display format includes >> "\" to indicate that the same field continues on the next line, and it >> includes "|" to separate items within a field. > > > Doesn’t COSE only have a COSE_Sign1? COSE_Sign0 is mentioned as wrong in > errata. > > The example in A.2 doesn’t look like a COSE_Sign1 at all. > > LL > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org <mailto:COSE@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
