Dear ANIMA chairs,
The time slot is OK for me, I can manage that and I will upload the slides soon
tody EOB. Thanks.
BR/Xun
-Original Message-
From: Anima On Behalf Of t...@cs.fau.de
Sent: Friday, 23 July 2021 06:21
To: anima@ietf.org; anima-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Anima] IETF111 ANI
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> We already are registering application/voucher-cose+cbor in section
>> 13.5.1 We fit voucher-request into the same content. (that's
>> distinguished by the SID values)
> So that is also a COSE-Sign1 payload? (Too lazy to check, sorry.)
Yes.
>> I
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I simply would like for the constrained voucher document to make a
> statement about the use of the COSE content type field. I have no
> strong opinions by now as to what it should say, but i would like our
> RFCs not to be underspecified and leave impleme
Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Are you also saying that they should/should not use “countersignature”?
> Maybe a single sentence that explains that there are no header
> parameters in use expect those that you specify would be enough.
AFAIK, mechanically, we can't use counter signatures, b
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I have not seen a slot request for subject draft. I will list it for
> the time being as to be reported during Chair slides, but you are more
> than welcome to request a slot.
Thank you.
We have not updated the document, I prefer not to take time on it until
Dangjuanna wrote:
> A New GRASP Objective Option as an example is defined as follows,
...
> Do you think it is available?
You just need to put this kind of thing (with answers) into your IANA
Considerations section, and when your document advances it will be allocated.
You can also ask
Hello all,
From the hackathon/interop we hit an interesting difference in spec-reading
viewpoints that I would like to bring to the list.
*** Question and context
The question is what is included in the ‘idevid-issuer’ field? RFC 8366 states
that it is binary and:
The Authority Key
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 08:38:31AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > My sugestion for the constrained voucher text is:
>
> > Constrained vouchers (application-type/voucher-cose+cbor, TBD3)
> > SHOULD NOT use the COSE header "content type" field because the
> > encoding is neve
Thanks. dded as note to chair slides
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 08:40:56AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > I have not seen a slot request for subject draft. I will list it for
> > the time being as to be reported during Chair slides, but you are more
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 08:39:59AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > Are you also saying that they should/should not use “countersignature”?
> > Maybe a single sentence that explains that there are no header
> > parameters in use expect those that you spe
Unfortunately, i have to pile on instead of just answering:
I can not remember that we ever constructed a case where his
field was necessary when we wrote rfc8366. At least, we did
not document it e.g. in the examples. Such an example, explanation
would now be very helpfull in answering your ques
Inline,
> On Jul 23, 2021, at 11:34 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
>
> Unfortunately, i have to pile on instead of just answering:
>
> I can not remember that we ever constructed a case where his
> field was necessary when we wrote rfc8366. At least, we did
> not document it e.g. in the examples
12 matches
Mail list logo
