Will take care of the sample after the final assignment of the algorithm identifier by IANA
From: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:00 PM To: Russ Housley <[email protected]> Cc: Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]>; Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; cose <[email protected]>; Ben Kaduk <[email protected]>; Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03 Hi Russ! This new text (and timing after the LC) works for me. Thanks. Roman From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:33 PM To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Laurence Lundblade <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Jim Schaad <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; cose <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Ben Kaduk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03 I have added this to the introduction to the Examples: This appendix provides a non-normative example ... I will post it after resolving any other Last Call comments that come along. Russ On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Roman Danyliw <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: From: COSE [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:16 PM To: Laurence Lundblade < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: Roman Danyliw < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Jim Schaad < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; cose < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Ben Kaduk < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Ivaylo Petrov < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03 Laurence: I'll let Jim respond to the format question, but I think the reference to GitHub in informative, [Roman] Irrespective of the Sign0 vs. 1 formatting. This highlights a good point -- I don’t think the text explicitly says these examples are non-normative. It probably should. Roman Russ On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Laurence Lundblade < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: 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 < <mailto:[email protected]> [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 < <mailto:[email protected]> [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 < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> On Behalf Of Laurence Lundblade Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:05 PM To: Russ Housley < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: Roman D. Danyliw < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Ivaylo Petrov < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Ben Kaduk < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; cose < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03 On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Russ Housley < <mailto:[email protected]> [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 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [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
