On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:36 AM Orie Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
> Felix and Robin, thank you for your comments on this document, and > especially the pull requests! > > I'm fine recommending both payload's be detached for consistency if that > is what the group recommends. > > I filed > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/issues/30 > to track these discussions. > > I hope others will comment on this issue. > > Are there any objections to recommending the payload be detached for > consistency proofs? > Just to be clear: should or must be detached for consistency proofs; should or must be detached for inclusion proofs? Per 5.2.1 inclusion proofs MUST have detached payloads not SHOULD. Did I understand correctly? I ask because your email is very clear, and the shorthand summary in the GitHub issue says "both inclusion and consistency proofs should have detached payloads" and I wanted to circle back here and confirm the only change would be consistency proofs, like your previous email said. For the record, I do not have objections but did a double take when reading this email and the issue #30 I left open in another browser tab earlier today. Thanks to those proposing changes and authors quickly accepting feedback with consensus.
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
