On 2020-07-24, at 00:08, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that I'm okay with breaking/updating COSE_Sign1.
Well, we wouldn’t break Sign1, but would break countersignatures with Sign1. > Don't we need Sign1 for SUIT? > I believe that Henk's SBOM proposal (outside of the IETF), does. Yes, we shouldn’t break Sign1. Now, about countersignatures: Do SUIT or SBOM use countersignatures on Sign1? We could always (and probably should) put in another structure that is called countersignature1 that does what we want while leaving the old one alone. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
