Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 03:16:02PM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote:
> Yeah, that is a cut and paste error.  I just make everything be the generic
> type and forgot to clean them down.
> 
> Should do that as part of the bis update.

Okay.  So it sounds like we do intend for this to be uint, so I should take
the errata as-is?

Thanks,

Ben

> Jim
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 2:48 PM
> > To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: 'RFC Errata System' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669)
> > 
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > > In the CBOR encoding it is pretty simple as non-negative integers and
> > > negative integers are encoded as separate types.
> > 
> > Right.  But if I look at, e.g.,
> > 
> >    COSE_Key = {
> >        1 => tstr / int,          ; kty
> >        ? 2 => bstr,              ; kid
> >        ? 3 => tstr / int,        ; alg
> >        ? 4 => [+ (tstr / int) ], ; key_ops
> >        ? 5 => bstr,              ; Base IV
> >        * label => values
> >    }
> > 
> > that has 'kty' as tstr / int, and 'int' is defined as either an unsigned
> integer or a
> > negative integer, so that doesn't really force it to be in the unsigned
> space.
> > 
> > (I'm not terribly sure that that's the right CDDL in which values from the
> > registry go, though.)
> > 
> > -Ben
>