Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, I noticed that later today too.
I thought the 8152bis were still in the IESG :-)
> 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.
I agree with just adding the two Updates: to countersign.
--
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
