Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1

From: ivaylo petrov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:06:07 +0100

Dear all,

During the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about
shorter form of counter signature that only has the counter signature
(appendix A.2) and infers a number of parameters from other context. Part
of the issue is that in Section 4.4 the context string in Sig_stucture is
"CounterSignature", whereas in A.2 it is called "CounterSignature0". At the
same time possibly it is more appropriate to name it CounterSignature1
considering that it has one counter signature.

Please respond whether you agree that CounterSignature1 is a better name
than CounterSignature0 and provide any other comments regarding those
issues.

Best regards,

- Matthew and Ivaylo
COSE Chairs

---

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:34:01 -0800

Just to clarify.  The CDDL structure name was already renamed in RFC 8152.  This is just a question of changing the context string used to create and validate the signature.

Jim

From: COSE <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of ivaylo petrov
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 8:06 AM
To: cose <[email-masked]>
Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1

Dear all,

shorter form of counter signature that only has the counter signature (appendix A.2) and infers a number of parameters from other context. Part of the issue is that in Section 4.4 the context string in Sig_stucture is "CounterSignature", whereas in A.2 it is called "CounterSignature0". At the same time possibly it is more appropriate to name it CounterSignature1 considering that it has one counter signature.

Please respond whether you agree that CounterSignature1 is a better name than CounterSignature0 and provide any other comments regarding those issues.

Best regards,

- Matthew and Ivaylo

COSE Chairs