Hi Jim! Thanks for this edit and all the discussions around counter signatures. I've updated my ballot.
Regards, Roman > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jim Schaad > Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 11:10 PM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; 'The IESG' <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Matthew > Miller' <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis- > struct-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Roman, > > I think you can close your discuss. The latest version of the document has > trimmed out everything to do with countersignatures except that there was > one previously and it has been dropped from this document and put into a new > document. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 7:08 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Matthew Miller <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-10: > (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Are the wrong data structures being referenced or did I misunderstand > something? > > ** Section 5. Per “Abbreviated counter signatures use the structure > COSE_Countersign1”, this doesn’t seem consistent with the more detailed > write-up in Section 5.2 which says that “The byte string representing the > signature value is placed in the CounterSignature0 attribute”. The document > makes no other reference to COSE_Countersign1. > > The shepherd write-up notes that ‘one item to note is the decision to keep the > context string "COSE_Countersign1" for abbreviated countersignatures’. > However, I found no such reference in Step 1 of Section 4.4 (page 22) which > enumerated the possible strings. > > ** What is the intended name of the structure for the Counter Signature -- is > it > COSE_Countersignature or COSE_Countersign? > > -- Table 1, Section 2, Section 4.4 and Section 5.1 (to include the CDDL) > reference COSE_Countersignature > > but > -- Section 5. Per “Full counter signatures use the structure COSE_Countersign > …” > > -- Section 5.1. Per “A tagged COSE_Countersign structure …” > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
