> On Nov 2, 2023, at 10:46 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2023, at 18:58, lgl island-resort.com <lgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 2) Publish with warnings > > I’m not a big fan of including “to implement this specification, you must read it, and all the other specifications that might be relevant for your application” with every RFC. I was assuming the warnings would be in the claims-in-headers document so there wouldn’t be any fan out (or even better IMO — leave the warnings out). >> (and add errata for COSE and JOSE?) > > Well, that is a bogeyman; there is nothing that the WG got wrong here that calls for an errata report. Yes, that’s the point. COSE, JOSE and CMS are fine without warnings about processing protected headers before validation — no errata needed — therefore it is fine to publish claims-in-headers without warnings. LL -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
