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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Elwyn:

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./

Agree.

> 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/

Agree.

> 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/

Agree.

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

Agree.

> 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.

Russ