Script updating archive at 2024-09-12T00:45:16Z. [ci skip]

archive.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
-  "timestamp": "2024-09-10T00:45:25.239031+00:00",
+  "timestamp": "2024-09-12T00:45:13.407732+00:00",
   "repo": "cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs",
   "labels": [
     {
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
       ],
       "body": "Request assignment for `receipts`, `vds`, and `vdp`.",
       "createdAt": "2024-03-06T15:01:33Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2024-07-08T20:18:26Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2024-09-10T15:26:42Z",
       "closedAt": null,
       "comments": [
         {
@@ -164,6 +164,20 @@
           "body": "I've requested these from Chairs / responsible AD.",
           "createdAt": "2024-07-08T20:18:25Z",
           "updatedAt": "2024-07-08T20:18:25Z"
+        },
+        {
+          "author": "SteveLasker",
+          "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR",
+          "body": "@OR13, ping for any updates \u2b06\ufe0f ",
+          "createdAt": "2024-09-10T14:04:11Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2024-09-10T14:04:33Z"
+        },
+        {
+          "author": "OR13",
+          "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR",
+          "body": "Need to ask chairs again.",
+          "createdAt": "2024-09-10T15:26:41Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2024-09-10T15:26:41Z"
         }
       ]
     },
@@ -282,11 +296,13 @@
       "state": "OPEN",
       "author": "OR13",
       "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR",
-      "assignees": [],
+      "assignees": [
+        "robinbryce"
+      ],
       "labels": [],
       "body": "https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/Jr10No1nSA35PxhBzYmx49oYuuY/\r\n\r\nSome discussion on the list suggests that both inclusion and consistency proofs should have detached payloads.",
       "createdAt": "2024-08-07T13:33:41Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2024-09-04T11:59:53Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2024-09-10T14:31:24Z",
       "closedAt": null,
       "comments": [
         {
@@ -316,6 +332,13 @@
           "body": "I'll try a pr for this this week, unless someone beats me to i",
           "createdAt": "2024-09-04T11:59:52Z",
           "updatedAt": "2024-09-04T11:59:52Z"
+        },
+        {
+          "author": "ad-l",
+          "authorAssociation": "NONE",
+          "body": "We discussed this on the editor call and we think that it is not really an issue that for the RFC9162 algorithm the inclusion proof has detached signature whereas consistency proofs have attached signatures, as for consistency you need an explicit comparison point (that you can't locally recompute), whereas inclusion proofs we explicitly want the verifier to recompute.\r\n\r\nHowever, there is one change we could do to clarify the requirements around this. Currently, we explain why all inclusion proofs should use detached payloads in 5.2, even though we don't say this requirement applies to all VDS, not just RFC9162_SHA256. So we should clarify this, and also say (possibly in 5.3) that consistency proofs may or may not use detached payloads, depending on the VDS.",
+          "createdAt": "2024-09-10T14:31:23Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2024-09-10T14:31:23Z"
         }
       ]
     }