Thank you all for your comments and observations! We will further investigate the ambiguity of the encoding, and how the scope should be clarified.
Michael, to quickly reply to your explicit question: the new draft was posted before the IETF 108 deadline on 2020-07-13, which is also before the expiry dates of the three different drafts that are now combined. ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress/ ) Another observation is that while our starting point has been to encode rfc7925 compliant certificates, we hope to make the proposal more future proof by allowing new algorithms also deemed suitable for constrained environments. With that target, we think it is possible to exclude RSA on the list of supported algorithms. Best Regards Joel Höglund On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 02:20, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joel Höglund <[email protected]> wrote: > > As you might have seen, we have merged and updated the old cbor > certificate > > related drafts into one (draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress-01) > where > > we have added some more details regarding encoding and > optimizations. We > > will look closer to the implications of your proposals as input for > > upcoming revisions. > > Am I correct that the -01 version didn't get posted in time? > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
