IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] Review of the algorithm document for countersignature intersection

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 30 July 2020 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7A53A0B25 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UrVlzG7D9HRU for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFD6A3A0B24 for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 06U10f5Q013534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 21:00:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:00:40 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, cose@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200730010040.GR92412@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <028701d665bd$c6d4d6b0$547e8410$@augustcellars.com> <CALaySJ+RhNtd0AA_Xf1eTMX+NNJscXJ_+pW6ZUAuWFqumA+Kyg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+RhNtd0AA_Xf1eTMX+NNJscXJ_+pW6ZUAuWFqumA+Kyg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/Hno18TIzTGBr0Bj44nAT_PUPP3Y>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Review of the algorithm document for countersignature intersection
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption <cose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cose/>
List-Post: <mailto:cose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 01:00:51 -0000

Since -algs is Informational either way, it's not clear that it would
depend on whether -struct is PS or IS.  (Right?)

-Ben

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 04:05:18PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Ack; thanks.
> I had been holding algs in wait for struct.  Should I go ahead and
> send algs up, even if struct needs more work... and even if it needs
> to stay at PS?
> 
> b
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:35 AM Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> >
> > Barry,
> >
> > I have just done a read through on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs looking
> > for potential conflicts with the changes in the Countersignature issue.  I
> > did not find any issues that should hold up the document from being pushed
> > to the RFC Editor.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> COSE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email