On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:16:37PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > > And as a further followup, I-D.ietf-cose-countersign is already mentioned > several times in rfc8152bis-struct, and is an informative reference. > > As an informative reference, it won't prevent rfc8152bis-struct from > waiting on countersign, but actually I rather think we should reference the > new RFC#. But, it shouldn't be a normative reference.
If I'm reading correctly, https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php shows that -algs and -hash-algs have had their copyediting pass and are waiting to enter the RFC-EDITOR state along with -struct, while -struct is in the EDIT state (and has been for 5 weeks). With the average time in EDIT being about 6 weeks, the cluster C416 should be able to progress fairly quickly. It's a supported operation to ask the RFC Editor to add a new document (-countersign) to the existing cluster if we want to do that, but I do not think we could use the Updates: mechanism to do that and would instead want to make -countersign a normative reference from -struct. That, in turn, is dicey from the downref perspective and might require another IETF LC. To me, that suggests not adding -countersign to the cluster and sticking with Updates, but I'd like to hear from others before taking any action here. -Ben _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
