Subject: [COSE] Countersignatures

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:12:49 +0200

So here is my revised proposed plan for handling countersignature:

— remove countersignature from -struct
— point out that RFC 8152 defines a form of countersignatures with known (described) drawbacks; this is still registered, so not going away
- point out that draft-ietf-… defines an updated form of countersignatures
- write draft-ietf-… (well, get that adopted swiftly), pursue early registration
- progress -struct to IS as planned.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:18:29 -0400

> - progress -struct to IS as planned.
I think the reasons you gave for keeping the discussion all in the same document are compelling.

Russ

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:41:21 -0400

> - progress -struct to IS as planned.

I initially preferred to delay the document and fix it, and have it all in
one document.

The interruption of the IS plan made me rethink things.
The possibility to fix things, and cycle at PS, and then status change after
implementation experience is appealing to me.

However, after some thought (and lunch), I have come to think that the
countersignatures are not worth holding the rest of the document.

If we can point out the flaws and say where to look to get them right, than
that's almost as good as having it in one document.

Jim later said that the OSCORE use of countersignatures will not be affected:
the way they are using them they will identical in old and new formulation,
because the differences do not affect them.
Still, I think there is time for them to point to the new document.

So I can live with Carsten's recommendation.
I can also live with cycling at PS and doing a status change.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-