look good,

Thanks

Paul

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 4:16 AM Henk Birkholz <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> that seems to be an oversight on my part. We attempted to address that
> issue in an earlier PR that I forgot to highlight. Please see:
>
> > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/53/files
>
> Please also find a complete diff between -06 and the Editor's version at:
>
> >
> https://cose-wg.github.io/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/#go.draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope.diff
>
> Viele Grüße,
>
> Henk
>
> On 01.10.25 05:18, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >
> > The second issue of the unparsable sentence is not yet resolved in the
> > referrences 2 PRs
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:20 AM Henk Birkholz
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Paul,
> >
> >     thanks for the feedback! Both issues have been addressed in:
> >
> >      > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/54
> >     <https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/54>
> >
> >     and
> >
> >      > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/55
> >     <https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/55>
> >
> >     We'll submit a new version after the IETF Last Call, if that is okay
> >     with you.
> >
> >
> >     Viele Grüße,
> >
> >     Henk
> >
> >     On 26.09.25 19:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >      > Hi all,
> >      >
> >      > This document looks good and I have issued the IETF Last Call.
> >      >
> >      > Two comments:
> >      >
> >      > this doesn't parse:
> >      >
> >      > This hash becomes the payload of a COSE-Sign1. When signed with a
> >      > signature algorithm that is parameterized via a hash function,
> >     such as
> >      > ECDSA with SHA384, the to be signed structure as described in
> >     Section
> >      > 4.4 of RFC9052.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > probably this was meant: as described -> is as described
> >      >
> >      > I don't think [I-D.draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals] can be
> >     infornative if
> >      > you use it in a section called "Terminology". I think it should be
> >      > normative.
> >      >
> >      > Paul
> >      >
> >      > _______________________________________________
> >      > COSE mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >      > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to