> -----Original Message----- > From: Göran Selander [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 12:55 PM > To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> > Cc: Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>; Justin Richer > <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-msg-20: (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > 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 may have misinterpreted what Göran said and this may not be the case. Jim > > 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 _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
