Hi Mike, Thank you for your review.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 16:45, Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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?) Your comments are tracked by https://github.com/ietf-scitt/draft-birkholz-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter/issues/52 cheers, t _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
