Thank you Robert for your review! From this discussion [1] it appears that indeed the intention of the usage of the term bag was not to make any assumptions about the uniqueness of the elements. I am taking a note to make that clear in the document regardless of the conclusion of that discussion.
[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/VLv2E6wcGkC4YY-vFMRxnEAXrXo/ -- Best regards, Ivaylo On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:18 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-cose-x509-07: No Objection > > 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-x509/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I would like to thank Jim Schaad for this document and all his other work > at > IETF. > > My only minor comment is that I was surprised by the name "x5bag", which in > computing terms I generally understand to be defined as a data structure > that > is like a set but it can contain duplicate values (also known as a > multiset). > It wasn't clear to me that was the intended purpose here, but I seem to > recall > that 'bag' might take a slightly different meaning in security circles? > Either > way, it might be helpful to specify both for the x5bag and x5chain whether > or > not duplicate certificates are allowed to be present. > > Regards, > Rob > > > >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
