I support and agree with all of that. Thanks,
Robin On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 02:07, Orie Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the context of RFC9162 inclusion and consistency proofs, if there is > consensus to make both payloads detached, I'm fine with MUST. > > In general, I don't think detached payloads should be required for all data > structures and proof types. > > Each registered structure and proof type should be able to specify the COSE > structures necessary to support it, and we should leave that specification to > the documents that add to the registry. > > If we feel it's important to constrain registration, we can consider adding > guidance to the designated experts, advising them to reject registrations > that encourage the use of attached payloads, but I don't think that is > necessary. > > Regards, > > OS > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024, 4:02 PM A.J. Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]
