Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: >> > In short, see Harald's reply [2] for the details, in order to extend >> > the acceptable "usage" values, we'd need "[...] to get IESG approval >> > on the change. Whether you need to publish an update to RFC 9360 or >> > an additional RFC is probably going to be decided by the WG, your AD, >> > and the IESG." >> >> > So, given the ambiguity surrounding the encoding of COSE_X509 raised >> > by John and MCR, we may wish to bundle these two together in a brief >> > update to RFC 9360. WDYT? >> >> It seems like draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap could do this, however, it's left the WG to >> the IESG and IETF LC. But, not on a telechat agenda yet.
> No, this requires further discussion with the stakeholders (TCG, Arm,
> Caliptra, etc.)
Do you really think that's going to be that hard?
> I'd rather not share fate with CMW.
Won't you have to normatively cite this new thing anyway?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
