On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 at 19:49, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 |
Ah ok! I misinterpreted your suggestion and went on a tangent. Done in one of the open PRs, thanks! t _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
