> On Nov 2, 2023, at 10:46 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2023, at 18:58, lgl island-resort.com <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> 2) Publish with warnings > > I’m not a big fan of including “to implement this specification, you must > read it, and all the other specifications that might be relevant for your > application” with every RFC.
I was assuming the warnings would be in the claims-in-headers document so there wouldn’t be any fan out (or even better IMO — leave the warnings out). >> (and add errata for COSE and JOSE?) > > Well, that is a bogeyman; there is nothing that the WG got wrong here that > calls for an errata report. Yes, that’s the point. COSE, JOSE and CMS are fine without warnings about processing protected headers before validation — no errata needed — therefore it is fine to publish claims-in-headers without warnings. LL _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
