Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06

Russ Housley <> Fri, 22 July 2022 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B92C13C53C; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TKbUs_PapMsf; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A27C13C501; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A582D14D16F; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 16:58:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2587D14D55C; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 16:58:34 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 16:01:11 -0400
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <>,,,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09 on
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 20:58:38 -0000


This message responds to the Nits.  I'll respond to your comment about 'other_fields' separately.

> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract:  Idnits is thoroughly confused by the document claiming to update RFC
> 8152 when it is actually updating an RFC that hasn't been published yet.  Given
> that rfc8152bis (RFC-to-be 9052) hasn't been published yet, I wonder if a note
> about countersigning could be added into that document. But in any case  this
> document updates RFC 9052.

This decision was made a long time ago by the COSE WG.  Given that draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct is in AUTH48, it seems like a bad idea to pull it back at this point.

> General: Use of " rather than ' for quoted strings. [s1.3 (6 places), s3.3 (2
> places)]

This seems to be Jim's style.  In soon-to-be-RFC-9052, the RFC Editor has changed the single quotes to double quotes.  I'll match that.

> s1.3: s/Byte is a synonym for octet./"Byte" is a synonym for "octet" in this
> document./


> s1, para 3: I think this needs a little expansion:  "the inclusion of more of
> values in the countersignature".  At least s/of more of values/of the content
> of additional fields/  (if I understand correctly).

It is just trying to say what is different from the old algorithm.  I suggest:

   The new algorithm requires the inclusion of more values for the
   countersignature computation.

> s2, para 3: s/Details on version 2/Details of version 2/


> s3, para 2: s/This is same structure/This is of the same structure/

I suggest a bigger change:

   Full countersignatures use the structure COSE_Countersignature,
   which has the same structure as COSE_Signature. Thus, full
   countersignatures can have protected and unprotected attributes,
   including chained countersignatures.

> s3.3, para 1: s/takes in countersignature/takes in the countersignature/


> s5.2, last para: s/"(Deprecated by [[This Document]]"./"(Deprecated by [[This
> Document]])"./ [Missing closing bracket.]


> s7.1: For the record there seems to be some lack of clarity as to whether there
> are two or three different languages supported.  The 'Languages' line says 3
> languages but only mentions Java and C#.  Further on in 'Testing', Java, C# and
> C are mentioned.  Since this section will be removed before publication it is
> not of great importance but would be good to get it right.  I couldn't see a C
> implementation in the cose-wg repository.

I see no reason to change this since it will be deleted.