[COSE] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

The second issue of the unparsable sentence is not yet resolved in the
referrences 2 PRs

Paul

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:20 AM Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> thanks for the feedback! Both issues have been addressed in:
>
> > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/54
>
> and
>
> > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/55
>
> We'll submit a new version after the IETF Last Call, if that is okay
> with you.
>
>
> Viele Grüße,
>
> Henk
>
> On 26.09.25 19:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This document looks good and I have issued the IETF Last Call.
> >
> > Two comments:
> >
> > this doesn't parse:
> >
> > This hash becomes the payload of a COSE-Sign1. When signed with a
> > signature algorithm that is parameterized via a hash function, such as
> > ECDSA with SHA384, the to be signed structure as described in Section
> > 4.4 of RFC9052.
> >
> >
> > probably this was meant: as described -> is as described
> >
> > I don't think [I-D.draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals] can be infornative if
> > you use it in a section called "Terminology". I think it should be
> > normative.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > COSE mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>