IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] Shepherd questions about countersign

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 11 March 2021 03:03 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 A66DF3A089A for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:03:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 rQmL9vyPgmxs for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65FBF3A0890 for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7BD389B8; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:08:46 -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 H88u-49C0fEv; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:08:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6481938983; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:08:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3237B; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:03:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Matthew Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>, cose <cose@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210310232748.GJ56617@kduck.mit.edu>
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> <22554.1615418197@localhost> <20210310232748.GJ56617@kduck.mit.edu>
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 22:03:39 -0500
Message-ID: <18650.1615431819@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/u5HsHWueKAqpZQtPLVgYNicrIrU>
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: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 03:03:48 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:16:37PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.

    > If I'm reading correctly, https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php
    > shows that -algs and -hash-algs have had their copyediting pass and are
    > waiting to enter the RFC-EDITOR state along with -struct, while -struct
    > is in the EDIT state (and has been for 5 weeks).  With the average time
    > in EDIT being about 6 weeks, the cluster C416 should be able to
    > progress fairly quickly.

Yeah, I noticed that later today too.
I thought the 8152bis were still in the IESG :-)

    > To me, that suggests not adding -countersign to the cluster and
    > sticking with Updates, but I'd like to hear from others before taking
    > any action here.

I agree with just adding the two Updates: to countersign.

--
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