Unfortunately, circumstances made me miss yesterdayโs meeting. I fully support the way forward outlined below. (I.e., I donโt have an objection, but wanted to make known that Iโm part of the emerging consensus.)
Grรผรe, Carsten > On 2020-08-26, at 21:58, Matthew A. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello COSE WG, > > The interim meeting today focused on countersignatures, and there was > rough consensus on a proposed plan. The chairs are seeking any > objections for a proposed breakdown to move forward countersignatures. > > 1) The working group will have two documents: rfc8152bis-struct for the > current state of the art, and a separate (still to be written) document > that describes the improved countersignatures (colloquially V2). > -rfc8152bis-struct will include an informative reference to this new > document in order to progress. Please inform the WG if you object to > separating countersignatures into a separate document. > > 2) The current countersignatures algorithm will be removed from > -rfc8152bis-struct, and in its place will be the rationale for > deprecating the "v1" countersignatures; readers will be directed to RFC > 8152 for information on implementing them. Please inform the WG if you > object to dropping "Countersignatures v1" from -rfc8152bis-struct. > > Please respond to this message with your objection to (1) and/or (2) > above. This call expires in approximately one week, on September 2. > Please be sure to respond with objections before then. > > > Thank you, > - Ivaylo and Matthew > COSE WG Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
