Hi Jonathan,
hi all,
as long there is no hard concern about including a proposed improvement
to countersignature V2 (with respect to interoperability
considerations), I'd be in favor of adding the array container as the
default. I actually think that will safe us from a lot of tweaks in the
future.
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 02.05.22 17:24, Jonathan Hammell wrote:
Hi Maik and Carsten,
On 2022-04-24, at 10:50, Maik Riechert <[email protected]> wrote:
OK, that seems to work, but it somehow feels wrong since then you couple
multiple layers together during decoding. What's the disadvantage of always
making it an array? Is this about the one extra byte in the case of a single
countersignature?
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:45 AM Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
If more people than the two of us share that bellyache, maybe we can still
change it for countersignature V2.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether countersignature V2 should be
changed to be always an array. Although version 2 countersignatures
were designed to be backwards compatible with the original
countersignature definition, they are to be assigned a new code-point
so I cannot see how it would technically be a breaking change with
legacy implementations.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
