(with no hat) At the least -countersign should have "Updates: rfc8152bis-struct", since this document fills the void left by deprecating the original countersignature scheme. I have no objections to also have "Updates: 8152".
- m&m Matthew A. Miller On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:21 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
