> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
> Sent: 22 October 2020 18:00
> To: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]>; Rob
> Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Cose Chairs Wg <cose-
> [email protected]>; cose <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; draft-
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [COSE] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-x509-
> 07: (with COMMENT)
>
>
> Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 08:28:26AM +0300, Ivaylo Petrov wrote:
> >> 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/
>
> > There is also some precedent for the use of "bag" for this type of
> thing;
> > consider, e.g., https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7292#section-4.2.3 .
>
> Yes! I was trying to make allusions to some place in PKIX where bag was
> used.
> I understand Carsten's objection that it's mathematically incorrect.
> I don't care one way or another.
I'm fine with it being called a bag if that is the historical term in this
context. I just think that the description should be clear that it is
unordered and not allowed to contain duplicates. Of course, that is presuming
that it isn't allowed duplicates ;-)
Regards,
Rob
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
