On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 01:44:27PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 05:38:38PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> > >> Should draft-ietf-cose-countersign-02 be marked as Updates: RFC8152 > >> (Amends). > > > Just to confirm: you are specifially asking about 8152, not 8152bis? > > Yes. > I think that both 8152bis documents Obsolete: RFC8152, and this document also > continues/replaces 8152, so I think that there should be a link of some kind.
Having a link of some kind sounds good. I think that, just as you argue here for an "Updates: 8152", one might also argue that "Updates: 8152bis-struct" is appropriate, since we are filling a void that was deliberately left in -struct. I do not claim to say that one is clearly preferred over the other. -Ben _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
