[COSE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Orie Steele for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Hannes Tschofenig, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-07-iotdir-telechat-tschofenig-2023-10-31/
(and I have read the email discussions with the authors, thanks to all)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 3

Is there a reason for using a non-normative "should" in `applications and
protocols using them *should* ensure that these COSE objects are only made
visible` ?