search

ietf-rats / ietf-corim-cddl

This repository is abandoned. The adopted I-D can be found at:
https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-corim/
2 stars 0 forks source link

explicit endorsement values and refval values #56

Closed thomas-fossati closed 3 years ago

thomas-fossati commented 3 years ago

Fixes #53

nedmsmith commented 3 years ago

It seems there are overlapping changes between #55 and #56 where element-value-map is changing to element-value-group, but #55 is still relying on element-value-map but #56 doesn't also update the instance maps to incorporate the change to element-value-group. Possibly, I'm not following fully the proposed changes so maybe these could be merged into a single PR?

thomas-fossati commented 3 years ago

We discussed whether to merge the two PRs into one (this one) or not, and decided that it may be clearer to keep the two separate for now. You should try and look at each PR in isolation, if it's not too confusing :-)

nedmsmith commented 3 years ago

That is what was confusing me. Why wouldn’t the ref-instance-claim-map use element-value-group?

thomas-fossati commented 3 years ago

That is what was confusing me. Why wouldn’t the ref-instance-claim-map use element-value-group?

Yes, you are right, that should be the case. For the time being -- until we put the two together -- you need to pretend to see the group there instead of the map :)

yogeshbdeshpande commented 3 years ago

As discussed earlier, please review explicit endorsement values and refval values (#56), change and then I will realign the ref-instance-claim-map and instance-endorsement maps Accordingly.

Keeping it two separate is done as Thomas raised the point as part of PSA Endorsements.

Once we review that, I will rebase my changes on Issue #51 fix to address your point above.