On 17. Jan 2025, at 19:23, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Carsten, > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 16:55, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2025-01-13, at 21:27, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> As noted in Shuping's ARTART review [1], table 1 contains a typo: >>> "3161-tcc" should read "3161-ttc" instead. >> >> Would it make sense to expand the abbreviation in the description? > > I've been staring at the table for about 10 minutes, trying two or > three different reformulations. > However, I found them all to be inferior to the current version - each > one felt slightly awkward and somewhat redundant. > Can you suggest a couple of good one-liners?
I would really just expand the abbreviation (TTC and CTT), as in: | Name | Label | Value | Value | Description | Reference | | | | Type | Registry | | | |----------|-------|-------|----------|---------------------------|-------------| | 3161-ttc | TBD1 | bstr | - | RFC 3161 timestamp token: | RFCthis, | | | | | | Timestamp then COSE | Section 3.1 | |----------|-------|-------|----------|---------------------------|-------------| | 3161-ctt | TBD2 | bstr | - | RFC 3161 timestamp token: | RFCthis, | | | | | | COSE then Timestamp | Section 3.2 | Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
