IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] Shepherd questions about countersign

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 10 March 2021 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 239C63A0C88 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:16:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 vumkV4y1R284 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E72A3A0C86 for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C42389A1; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:21:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id KvYYAfOKLaZz; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:21:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BA43899F; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:21:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46F5439; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:16:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Matthew Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>, Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, cose <cose@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <83F10642-D2C8-471E-B02C-7498CBEB1E45@vigilsec.com>
References: <26429.1614983918@localhost> <20210307214733.GW56617@kduck.mit.edu> <14169.1615229067@localhost> <20210308232119.GP56617@kduck.mit.edu> <CAOgaonuA1TRL4Kjsig9PCZnzawnCh=DKPwvOxGJNTrdnSZwfDQ@mail.gmail.com> <83F10642-D2C8-471E-B02C-7498CBEB1E45@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:16:37 -0500
Message-ID: <22554.1615418197@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/b54lJe32wnKo4f721Pl7ZPzPdcQ>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Shepherd questions about countersign
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:16:41 -0000

And as a further followup, I-D.ietf-cose-countersign is already mentioned
several times in rfc8152bis-struct, and is an informative reference.

As an informative reference, it won't prevent rfc8152bis-struct from
waiting on countersign, but actually I rather think we should reference the
new RFC#.  But, it shouldn't be a normative reference.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email