Hi, It sounds good that you are making progress.
Barry, do you plan to make this an returing item to the IESG telechat when it is ready due to its elevated status? Cheers Magnus On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 23:12 +0100, Ivaylo Petrov wrote: > Hello Magnus, > > Thank you for your review and apologies for the delay! I have changed the > document status as you requested. The change could be seen in commitdf4c50d . > I have some technical difficulties and after they are resolved, I will upload > a new version of the draft. After that I will work with Barry Leiba to have > the new IETF last call. > > Best regards, > Ivaylo > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:18 PM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-cose-x509-07: 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-x509/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I think the topic should be fairly easily to resolve one way or another. > > However, even after having read the reply to Marin's comment I don't think > > this > > document is published with the right status. > > > > - The document defines new CBOR attributes, that is standard track work as > > it > > comes out as consensus document from a IETF WG. - It does not define or > > document crypto algorithm just refer to existing ones. - The charter item > > might > > have been reasonable as informational if existing attributes could have been > > used. With the choice to define new attributes I think this has entered > > standards track. - The status of the document I think will also affect the > > value that IANA might assign to these COSE Header Parameters. > > > > If there are additional considerations I am happy to learn about them. > > > > Else, I would propose a change of status to proposed standard and redo the > > IETF > > last call. > > > > > > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
