Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> 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.
Oh, I see.
I agree that it could say Updates: 8152bis-struct as well.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
