Yes without draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 having a clear path to RFC I would not want to have a dependency on it.
Mike correctly points out that there are other outstanding differences between the two as well. John On 2012-11-11, at 10:21 PM, "Manger, James H" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 1. Use draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 > >> I think that is largely the effect of making the proposed change. The >> remaining question if we do it is if we want to take a dependency on >> draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 or incorporate it. >> >> If it is a ID taking a dependency on it is problematic proceduraly. > > What is the procedural problem? Is this a timing thing -- you don't want a > JOSE draft to have to wait for the draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 draft? > > -- > James Manger _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
