That makes sense, but I do not think we need to wait for rfc8152bis-struct to get an RFC number so that we can add it to the upper left corner of the title page.
Russ > On Mar 8, 2021, at 6:52 PM, Matthew Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > (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
