Hi Carsten, On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 18:42, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > At IETF 118, we asked the RATS WG to adopt > > draft-birkholz-epoch-markers [1]. There was some discussion about > > scope [2]: > > > >> Dave noted that the discussion at the last IETF meeting indicated that > >> this work should be done in the COSE working group. Have you asked the > >> COSE working group? > > > > The I-D makes use of COSE_Sign1 & is specifying a vehicle for an > > extensible list of freshness indicators (see Section 10 in RFC9334 > > [3]), such as timestamps, nonces, monotonically increasing counters, > > etc. Does it make more sense to continue the work as a COSE WG item > > (because the Epoch Marker is a COSE structure) or in the RATS WG > > (because Epoch Markers are about freshness epochs)? > > In the end, we have to see where the people are who are interested in making > this spec happen and have the expertise for doing that. > > It seems to me that the requirements for epoch markers are well-understood in > RATS, and I’m not sure we need a lot of COSE-specific expertise to complete > this specification. > > So, after a week of silence on the COSE mailing list: > To this co-author, it seems we should complete the work in RATS.
Thanks for your (very sensible) assessment. In the meantime, we haven't heard anyone screaming "We should do this in the COSE WG", and I share your view that RATS are the "epoch" experts. Therefore, I think it's fair to go back to the RATS chairs and consult with them on how we should proceed. cheers, t _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
