This would appear to mean that the document was understandable to a group of people with minimal familiarity however. I find that encouraging as the author.
Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [COSE] COSE as seen by a bunch of students > > Not quite a WGLC review, but here's what a group of students had to say about > draft-ietf-cose-msg-12.txt as part of a recent class assignment (with > permission, > excerpted and translated by yours truly). > > (Please don't read this as a criticism of CMS, the students just happened to > need > to look at both CMS and COSE for the assignment.) > > My main point here is that the -msg draft indeed appears to be quite > accessible > for new people to acquaint themselves with COSE, and I'm happy to see that we > seem to have achieved that. > > Grüße, Carsten > > ... > The COSE draft provides current encryption algorithms and hashes (EdDSA, SHA- > 2, AES, ChaCha20/Poly1305, ECDH). > It is prepared for the future by using IANA for defining and publishing > identifiers > for new algorithms, so that the relevant algorithms can all be found in one > place. > ... > Since COSE is based on CBOR, some information can be expressed in a more > compact and simple way [than with CMS]. > A single CBOR parser can be used for all formats. > In addition, all formats have a very similar structure that is sharing the > header: > an array containing two headers with meta information as well as a field for > payloads and optional fields for signatures and recipients. > COSE has been developed for the use on devices with constrained resources, so > the parsing of the packets should use minimal time, energy and memory. > ... > [In comparing CMS and COSE:] > There is no equivalent [in COSE] for the Digested-data Content Type [in CMS]. > ... > In reading the available source documents it became apparent that the COSE > draft places a lot more attention on examples and howto's, making the draft > much more readable. ASN.1 is getting in the way of understanding, CBOR is > easier to understand. Also, there are no test vectors in the CMS RFCs we > used. > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
