Ack; releasing it now. b
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:55 AM Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > -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
