Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > At the virtual IETF meeting where had a long discussion on how the structure > document should progress without getting any type of final conclusions. > Since that time I have come up with a new option which I think should be > added to the discussion.
You have five choices, but I think that I there are actually two decisions:
a) the base document will advance with:
1) no countersignature algorithm
2) the old(current) countersignature algorithm
3) the new countersignature algorithm
b) one or two documents will be created to document and deprecrate the old
algorithm, and document the new way.
> 5. Have three documents: Pull the current countersignature algorithm out
of
> the core document and advance it to full standard. Create two new
> documents, one for each of the countersignature algorithms. The old
> countersignature algorithm would be published as historic and the new
> document can be cycled as needed until it is ready and then added to the
STD
> number as a second document.
This is A1, and B-with-two-documents.
I am fine with that in the end.
Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I said on the call, I think that one document is better, even if it
> causes a short delay for progress of the I-D toward RFC.
I estimate it will be a six month delay.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
