Re: [COSE] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-x509-07: (with COMMENT)

[Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Robert for your review! From this discussion [1] it appears that
indeed the intention of the usage of the term bag was not to make any
assumptions about the uniqueness of the elements. I am taking a note to
make that clear in the document regardless of the conclusion of that
discussion.

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/VLv2E6wcGkC4YY-vFMRxnEAXrXo/

--
Best regards,
Ivaylo


On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:18 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-cose-x509-07: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-x509/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to thank Jim Schaad for this document and all his other work
> at
> IETF.
>
> My only minor comment is that I was surprised by the name "x5bag", which in
> computing terms I generally understand to be defined as a data structure
> that
> is like a set but it can contain duplicate values (also known as a
> multiset).
> It wasn't clear to me that was the intended purpose here, but I seem to
> recall
> that 'bag' might take a slightly different meaning in security circles?
> Either
> way, it might be helpful to specify both for the x5bag and x5chain whether
> or
> not duplicate certificates are allowed to be present.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
>