Hi Didn’t see any response to this. I also understand bette and can comment more clearly.
I really do think that s/COSE_Sign0/COSE_Sign1/ is necessary for the document to be correct. I also think the Appendix A examples should be like the examples in RFC 8152 Appendix C. The examples should be just in CBOR diag, not in the JSON-format test framework input format. Is the reference to https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples <https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples> in the Appendix considered normative? LL > On Oct 10, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf >> Of Laurence Lundblade >> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:05 PM >> To: Russ Housley <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Roman D. Danyliw <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Ivaylo Petrov >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Ben Kaduk <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; cose <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03 >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
