Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

I have added this to the introduction to the Examples:

   This appendix provides a non-normative example ...

I will post it after resolving any other Last Call comments that come along.

Russ


> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>  
> From: COSE [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:16 PM
> To: Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jim Schaad <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; cose <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ben Kaduk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03
>  
> Laurence:
>  
> I'll let Jim respond to the format question, but I think the reference to GitHub in informative,
>  
> [Roman] Irrespective of the Sign0 vs. 1 formatting.  This highlights a good point -- I don’t think the text explicitly says these examples are non-normative.  It probably should.
>  
> Roman
>  
> Russ
>  
> 
> 
> On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Hi
>  
> Didn’t see any response to this. I also understand bette and can comment more clearly.
>  
> I really do think that s/COSE_Sign0/COSE_Sign1/ is necessary for the document to be correct.
>  
> I also think the Appendix A examples should be like the examples in RFC 8152 Appendix C. The examples should be just in CBOR diag, not in the JSON-format test framework input format. Is the reference to https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples <https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples> in the Appendix considered normative?
>  
> LL
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Well I understand better — this is JSON formatted inputs / outputs for a test suite used by COSE-C?
>  
> But still…
>  
> What is a COSE_Sign0? Everywhere I look, I see it is a deprecated name for a COSE_SIgn1.
>  
> Shouldn’t the examples here look like the examples in RFC 8152? Should this use a new style for examples?
>  
> LL
>  
>  
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> No that would be the format that I use in the examples with all of the inputs as well.  You should just use the cbor_diag field, and read section 8 of the CBOR draft for how multiple lies are done.
>  
> From: COSE <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Laurence Lundblade
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:05 PM
> To: Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ben Kaduk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; cose <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03
>  
>  
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
>   This appendix provides an example of a COSE full message signature
>   and an example of a COSE_Sign0 message.  The display format includes
>   "\" to indicate that the same field continues on the next line, and it
>   includes "|" to separate items within a field.
>  
> Doesn’t COSE only have a COSE_Sign1?  COSE_Sign0 is mentioned as wrong in errata.
>  
> The example in A.2 doesn’t look like a COSE_Sign1 at all.
>  
> LL
>  
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>