Thanks, Mike! BTW, great PR.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 14:40, Michael Prorock <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. nice! > 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? Looking at the registry [1], the lowest unassigned blocks are currently 17-21 and 26-31. It'd seem not completely unlikely that TTC and CTT will end up somewhere in that space. If you think there is a case for early allocation, please let us know. Otherwise, we'll go with whatever IANA decides. > 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." Thanks for raising this - see also [2]. cheers, t [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#header-parameters [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/q8uDhVbQvmE5qDdLzvAo_OCf2A0/ _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
