Thanks Brian, Your PR #122 looks good, I’ll confirm with the co-authors next week. I made PR #123 to fix #121 (which indeed was a copy-paste error).
Göran From: Sipos, Brian J. <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 23:19 To: Göran Selander <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: C509 additional compressed SAN form Göran, I missed this feedback earlier, so thanks. There is now a PR for the specific change to handle the RFC 9174 registrations. While editing I also discovered Issue #121 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-21c806d58cdb6e2c&q=1&e=39cb16c6-70b0-4977-a3eb-6a0028a4062f&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2FCBOR-certificates%2Fissues%2F121> but don’t plan on following up on that one with any PR. From: Göran Selander <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 6:15 PM To: Sipos, Brian J. <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [EXT] Re: C509 additional compressed SAN form Hi Brian, This sounds like a reasonable request, I made an issue: https://github.com/cose-wg/CBOR-certificates/issues/120 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-bc265de978aac898&q=1&e=39cb16c6-70b0-4977-a3eb-6a0028a4062f&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2FCBOR-certificates%2Fissues%2F120> Please provide a PR or a detailed proposal for the update. Thanks, Göran From: Sipos, Brian J. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 25 July 2023 at 20:36 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: C509 additional compressed SAN form initial code point in the “C509 General Names Registry” for the Bundle Protocol Endpoint ID? This otherName form was allocated in RFC 9174 [2] and has an existing compressed CBOR form defined in RFC 9171 [3] (with a CDDL symbol “eid-structure” defined in that document). I don’t think there would be much more work than referencing those existing otherName OID and the CDDL symbol (or simply copy-pasting that symbol definition), or I could propose specific text to fit in Figure 13 if desired. I think allocating in the initial table would be easier than allocating a single code point in a separate document, but I don’t want to interrupt the current document flow. Any thoughts are welcome, thanks! Brian S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-06.html#section-11.8 <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-06.html#section-11.8> [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#appendix-B <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#appendix-B> [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171#section-4.2.5.1-6 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171#section-4.2.5.1-6>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
