Hi Michael, Thank you for the quick feedback. I understand if the REM Protocol may not fully align with the COSE charter as it currently stands. My intent was to explore whether the concept of packaging proof artifacts (DOIs, hashes, TXIDs) via COSE receipts/envelopes for interoperability could have a place, even if tangential.
Would you suggest an alternative working group or area within IETF that might be a better fit for this draft? I’d like to make sure I’m engaging with the right forum for further discussion and refinement. Best regards, Lawrence Reilly On Mon, Sep 22, 2025, 12:54 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think that this document fits into the COSE charter. > > > lawrence reilly <[email protected]> wrote: > > My name is Lawrence John Reilly Jr., and I’ve authored an > > Internet-Draft on the Reilly EternaMark (REM) Protocol: > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-reilly-rem-protocol-00.html > > > The REM Protocol establishes digital permanence using DOI archiving + > > blockchain timestamping. Proof artifacts already exist as live DOIs, > > hashes, and TXIDs. I’m exploring how such artifacts might be packaged > > using COSE receipts/envelopes for interoperability. > > > Would the group be open to providing feedback on applicability or > fit? > > > Best regards, L.J. Reilly > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Alternatives: > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- > > [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
