Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > Assuming that happens soon, should this document now update the RFC > that comes from draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15?
> If so, then a small rewording to the above paragraph to:
> During the process of advancing COSE to Internet Standard, it was
> noticed the description of the security properties of countersignatures
> was incorrect for the COSE_Sign1 structure. Since the security
> properties that were described, those of a true countersignature, were
> those that the working group desired, the decision was made to remove
> all of the countersignature text from
> [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. This document defines a new
> countersignature with the desired security properties.
> Note that [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] obsoletes RFC 8152.
> If you agree, then this document will update the RFC that comes from
> draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15, not RFC 8152.
While Updates appear in the document as backwards references, it does result
in meta-data on rfc-editor.org and DT that points forward.
So I think it's really important that RFC8152 receive a forward pointer to
draft-ietf-cose-countersign-05. Can we list both?
Specifically, in the language of I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag (which I
acknowledge does not yet have IETF Consensus.. but I can still hope), the
Update to RFC8152 is an _Amends_ while the Update to
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct is an Extends.
This is how we handled it in a document in ANMIMA WG:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-17.html#name-updates-to-rfc8366-and-rfc8
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
