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 > > and > > > 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] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
