Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t think tstr can be removed from the standard. That would break > backwards compatibility. Maybe a strong recommendation could be added > with the comment that many implementations don’t support tstr.
Any system built upon COSE that does not support tstr as a key is already
broken if many implementations don't support it.
We can deprecate tstr as key.
We can say that no signer MUST NEVER emit this again.
We can say that a verifier MAY accept tstr as a key.
> There is a revision of 8152 in process right now called 8152bis. That
> seems like the place to do it.
It is pretty late to do this. 8152bis is in AUTH48, we need the proxy-author
and WG chairs to agree to this immediately.
I agree that having two ways things is not a good thing.
--
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
