Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-05: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Roman's DISCUSS regarding charter status. The remaining comments can hopefully be used to improve the document if and when it is submitted by a WG whose charter permits it. The 2119 MUST in the first sentence of 3.x is unnecessary -- if a different field were used, it wouldn't be what's defined in this specification. You can simply say that these headers are used for the corresponding purposes. However, a more useful 2119 keyword might be in mandating that the header be protected/unprotected as appropriate; if this header appears in the wrong section then the security properties won't apply. The examples in 3.2.x don't specify behavior; they might be better placed in Appendix A, which already contains examples. (Do the two sets of examples illustrate different things?) _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
