> On 2 nov. 2016, at 18:11, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:16 PM >> To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; 'Justin Richer' <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'The IESG' <[email protected]>; >> draft-ietf- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-msg-20: (with >> DISCUSS >> and COMMENT) >> >> >> Hiya, >> >>> On 01/11/16 19:17, Jim Schaad wrote: >>> Another thread dealing with this issue includes >>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cose/current/msg00981.html - >>> basically the subject is 'make "alg" field optional' >>> >>> Usual suspects (Göran, Ludwig, Francesca) on one side, me and a >>> couple of others on the other side. Interestingly the antis included >>> Mike who argued for this in the JOSE. >> >> Heh. To be honest, I'm not sure what's best here. Normally if >> it were just my design tastes against the WGs, I'd happily >> fold. But in this case we have an appendix that says how to >> not do what's a MUST in the body of the spec. And I suspect >> that this could damage interop depending on whether or not >> libraries follow the MUST or not. >> >> Do we think there's a way to square this circle and somehow >> get rid of the appendix to get to a result folks can all use? > > I wish I knew. The fact that the CORE draft is not even complying with how > the appendix is saying to do things almost leads me to think that we should > just kill that section of the appendix and re-evaluate things.
I'd like to understand what is the problem with how it is specified in the CORE draft, if it is a problem. If it isn't, then either stop mandating alg + remove app A, or change Appendix A so that this case isn't discouraged. Göran
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
