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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
