On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 12:10, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2025, at 09:39, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> If you are talking about Section 9 of RFC 9052, please read again: > > > > No, they are referring to the definition of COSE_X509 in §2 of RFC9360. > > OK. > There is no restriction of the encoding implied there, so this is not > ambiguous. > > (Citing Section 9 of RFC 9052 in the thread sounds like someone tries to > apply the restrictions on the signing input procedure to the data in flight > here, which is not how COSE works.) > > Where is the ambiguity?
Perhaps there isn't one, and this is all just a red herring :-) However, to be clear: what happens when COSE_X509 is used in a protected header (e.g., x5chain, x5bag, x5chain-sender)? Should it obey §9 of RFC 9052, or can it be indefinite-length? cheers, t _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
