Answering Mike P.’s question about IANA registrations, it is strongly preferred
to have the IANA Considerations section follow the registration
template<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8152#section-16.3> and
contain the exact values to be placed in the registry (with the Label of
course, being TBD). An example of such IANA Considerations text is
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9596.html#name-iana-considerations. Please
update the draft to add this content.
Thanks,
-- Mike
From: Michael Prorock <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 5:40 AM
To: Michael Prorock <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Jones <[email protected]>; cose <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter
All,
I have performed a read through of the doc. A few minor language preferences
for clarity have been suggested here:
https://github.com/ietf-scitt/draft-birkholz-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter/pull/12
Otherwise, I was able to implement and test both modes of operation and get the
desired results (with stand in labels). That indicates to me that the draft is
well formed, concise, and references the other specifications appropriately
that I needed to reference.
I find this document useful, and we would implement and utilize in production,
and support moving this forward.
Two minor additional nits below:
One question for the group / authors - is there a preferred set of values for
the TBDs in the COSE labels section, or should that just be left as is for now?
An additional style question, is it better to restate the COSE headers
requested in the IANA requested format, or is it fine to reference as is done
in the draft currently? e.g. current draft reads: "IANA is requested to add the
two COSE header parameters described in Section 3 to the "COSE Header
Parameters" subregistry of the [IANA.cose] registry."
This could obviously be detailed out.
- Mike Prorock
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:43 AM Michael Prorock
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks for the additional time Mike and Ivo.
I support moving this along, but I would like to perform a detailed read
through. I have some time set aside for this and will have comments back next
week.
Mike Prorock
founder - mesur.io<http://mesur.io/>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 10:47 Michael Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ivo and I reviewed the results of the WGLC and there have been no responses
whatsoever – even from the authors. We are therefore extending the WGLC for
another two weeks until Tuesday, August 27th. Unless multiple people support
progressing the draft, we will not request publication.
Please send your reviews and feedback on the draft.
Thank you,
-- Mike and Ivo
From: Michael Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 10:53 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [COSE] WGLC for draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter
Hi all,
This message starts the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-02.html.
The WGLC will run for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, August 13, 2024.
Please review and send any comments or feedback to the working group. Even if
your feedback is “this is ready for publication”, please let us know.
Thank you,
-- Mike and Ivaylo, COSE Chairs
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
