> Specifically, I am referring to: > * COSE Receipts > * COSE Hash Envelope > * COSE Header parameter for RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens > […] > Regarding redispatching, SCITT could serve as a good home for all > three. SCITT folks: can you confirm?
Although I have been watching some of the conversation I’m not terribly familiar with the TST header one, but the other two certainly: they are the basis of SCITT’s ability to service software supply chain artifacts, particularly very large or remote ones. >From a raw architecture point of view I liked them being in COSE, since >they’re also useful for non-SCITT uses of COSE/CBOR, but the SCITT WG needed >that work done and so it seems very plausible to move them across, ADs willing. I’ll read up on TST. Jon On 05/05/2025, 14:29, "Thomas Fossati" <[email protected]> wrote: [ CC -= IESG; CC += SCITT ] On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 17:33, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For the responsible AD and WG chairs -- this document is not in scope for the > current WG charter. My understanding of its substance is that it defines two, > new COSE attributes. The approved -03 charter explicitly says: > > “The WG will produce documents for new attributes only if they are in the > list of deliverables below. A re-charter will be required to expand that list. > The WG is expected as part of normal processing to review and comment on > attributes that are not in charter but are of general public interest.” > > There is no subsequent reference to work about specifying timestamp related > attributes in the work items section of the charter (or any other place). Thanks, Roman, for pointing this out. At a glance, it seems that three of seven (i.e., ~40%) of the currently adopted documents are out of scope. Specifically, I am referring to: * COSE Receipts * COSE Hash Envelope * COSE Header parameter for RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens All three are quite advanced (in particular, “TST header parameters” is with the IESG, and "Receipts" is in WGLC). Possible ways out include: * Rechartering to put them in scope, * Re-dispatching to other WGs, or * Seeking AD sponsorship. Given that the WG has already invested considerable effort in the documents, a (quick) retrospective rechartering does not seem unnatural to me. (Besides, while I tend to prefer charters with a narrow scope, I believe the current COSE charter is a bit *too* narrow, considering the breadth of the problem space?) Regarding redispatching, SCITT could serve as a good home for all three. SCITT folks: can you confirm? AD sponsorship seems the least compelling route, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Any thoughts or (possibly brilliant) ideas? :-) cheers! -- SCITT mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
