Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the interests of brevity, my review focused on the diff between this document and RFC 8152. Major points: I agree with Benjamin's concern that we seem to be leaving the Designated Experts for the IANA registries described here with advice in RFC 8152, which this document renders obsolete. I think that prose should be copied to this document so that it lives someplace current. I was originally tempted to DISCUSS this but I'm hesitating, so I'll just say I hope this is resolved appropriately. Some nits: Section 1: * "... structure for the CBOR objects which are ..." -- s/which/that/ * "... or offline protocols, different solutions ..." -- "different" should start a new sentence * "Any application which uses COSE for security ..." -- s/which/that/ Section 5: * The last sentence in the first paragraph: OLD: It needs to be noted that the counter signature needs to be treated as a separate operation from the initial operation even if it is applied by the same user as is done in [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]. NEW: It needs to be noted that the counter signature is to be treated as a separate operation from the initial operation, even if it is applied by the same user, as is done in [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]. * "This is same structure ..." -- s/same/the same/ * "That is the counter signature ..." -- comma after "is" * "... existence of the encrypted data is attested to." -- maybe "asserted" instead of "attested to"? Section 9: * "New algorithms will be created which will not fit ..." -- s/which/that/ Section 9.5.5: * In the final bullet, why aren't these MUSTs? Or in the alternative, when would one legitimately deviate from those SHOULDs? _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
