-algs has a normative dependency on -struct so it gets held in the RFC Editor queue. But no it should not care what the status is.
I think it can be released because that is a better reflection of the work status. -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:01 PM To: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> Cc: Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [COSE] Review of the algorithm document for countersignature intersection Since -algs is Informational either way, it's not clear that it would depend on whether -struct is PS or IS. (Right?) -Ben On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 04:05:18PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > Ack; thanks. > I had been holding algs in wait for struct. Should I go ahead and > send algs up, even if struct needs more work... and even if it needs > to stay at PS? > > b > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:35 AM Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Barry, > > > > I have just done a read through on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs > > looking for potential conflicts with the changes in the > > Countersignature issue. I did not find any issues that should hold > > up the document from being pushed to the RFC Editor. > > > > Jim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
