From ea01620630dc20f61862291ff09de2e414c2b7a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ID Bot Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:32:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Script updating archive at 2024-08-20T00:32:02Z. [ci skip] --- archive.json | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/archive.json b/archive.json index 3dc6c08..3427d43 100644 --- a/archive.json +++ b/archive.json @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I", - "timestamp": "2024-08-18T00:01:37.260230+00:00", + "timestamp": "2024-08-20T00:31:59.876768+00:00", "repo": "cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope", "labels": [ { @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ "labels": [], "body": "https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/PCJQ7S7IMnZLWxjI677Wv-qeLaI/", "createdAt": "2024-08-16T14:03:40Z", - "updatedAt": "2024-08-17T01:10:08Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:31:43Z", "closedAt": null, "comments": [ { @@ -319,6 +319,13 @@ "body": "Does https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope/pull/23/files#diff-d760cfc872ca7eedc40666f385a0b41d3a8dbce96529e59fd0fc6ef3f58921f5R139-R140 address the feedback?", "createdAt": "2024-08-17T01:10:07Z", "updatedAt": "2024-08-17T01:10:07Z" + }, + { + "author": "OR13", + "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR", + "body": "No\r\n\r\n```\r\n- Should payload_hash_alg be required to be critical?\r\n```\r\n\r\nWe should write some text providing guidance for this... IMO better to say it MAY be marked critical.\r\n\r\n```\r\n- Assuming payload_hash_alg just causes content to be pre-hashed,\r\n then how do payload_preimage_content_type and 'content type'\r\n differ?\r\n```\r\n\r\nI think this one is addressed.\r\n\r\n\r\n```\r\n- Maybe add protected header for preimage length. So that applications\r\n don't have to deal with over-large responses from HTTP servers (which\r\n could cause problems).\r\n\r\n Something like:\r\n\r\n &(payload_preimage_content_length: TBD_4) => uint\r\n\r\n If payload_hash_alg just causes prehashing, maybe call it\r\n 'content length' or something.\r\n```\r\n \r\n I don't understand this comment, we should get clarity on the list.\r\n \r\n ```\r\n - Picking the same hash function as the signature does not guarantee\r\n equal strength, because some signatures have internal collision\r\n mitigations (e.g., EdDSA, ML-DSA and SLH-DSA).\r\n```\r\n\r\nThis is missing the point of the original text, which just says \"align\" as in... dont use sha1 with P521... I tried to eleaborate on this with the ES384 example\r\n \r\n \r\n ", + "createdAt": "2024-08-19T13:31:41Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:31:41Z" } ] } @@ -1167,13 +1174,13 @@ "labels": [], "body": "- remove named hash algorithm registry references\r\n- fix iana registrations\r\n- explain relationship to hash and then sign pre-protocol crypto.\r\n- add implementor report", "createdAt": "2024-08-16T23:06:12Z", - "updatedAt": "2024-08-17T01:07:26Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:35:21Z", "baseRepository": "cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope", "baseRefName": "main", "baseRefOid": "9f7ab1009bbf5f933afab691402b44ad16e05c6a", "headRepository": "cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope", "headRefName": "pre-01-updates", - "headRefOid": "7fbf51149f0b96177779990179d120b9a188f076", + "headRefOid": "d62df6a76309a4be30407ff71cf5080a36cfa50f", "closedAt": null, "mergedAt": null, "mergedBy": null, @@ -1205,6 +1212,46 @@ "updatedAt": "2024-08-17T01:07:26Z" } ] + }, + { + "id": "PRR_kwDOKqKrRc6F2JtS", + "commit": { + "abbreviatedOid": "7fbf511" + }, + "author": "OR13", + "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR", + "state": "COMMENTED", + "body": "", + "createdAt": "2024-08-19T13:33:30Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:33:30Z", + "comments": [ + { + "originalPosition": 145, + "body": "@henkbirkholz fyi ", + "createdAt": "2024-08-19T13:33:30Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:33:30Z" + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "PRR_kwDOKqKrRc6F2Kl1", + "commit": { + "abbreviatedOid": "7fbf511" + }, + "author": "OR13", + "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR", + "state": "COMMENTED", + "body": "", + "createdAt": "2024-08-19T13:35:04Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:35:04Z", + "comments": [ + { + "originalPosition": 145, + "body": "This syntax is EDN elision, it seems low effort to include it, and it eliminates ambiguity in EDN", + "createdAt": "2024-08-19T13:35:04Z", + "updatedAt": "2024-08-19T13:35:04Z" + } + ] } ] }