> -----Original Message-----
> From: COSE <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 7:58 PM
> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00:
> (with COMMENT)
>
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory
> paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think this is one of the recharters that is appropriate for external
review
> before approval. Thanks for that.
>
> I see "resistant to quantum computing" a lot these days, but is this
actually
> "resistant to attacks based on quantum-computing capabilities", or
something
> like that? I mean, quantum computers do have other uses, I hope :-)
Yes it is "resistant to attacks..."
Well - the big use of quantum computers that I have seen mostly boil down to
- how do we solve this problem which are hard and therefore could be used
for cryptography, but yes there are other thing like traveling salesmen that
are supposed to be solvable.
>
> This text
>
> "At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates
was
> not a feature that needed to be transferred from the JOSE key document
(RFC
> 7517). Since that time a better sense of how certificates would be used
both in
> the IoT sphere and with COSE outside of the IoT sphere has been developed.
> The need to be able to identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that
needs to
> be provided. This will additionally require definition of a small number
of hash
> functions for compact references to certificates."
>
> alternates between "X.509 certificates" (twice) and "certificates" with no
> adjective (twice). If there's no difference intended, it may be useful to
be
> consistent.
The text should probably use X.509 certificates consistently. There are
other certificate formats and I have already been approached by somebody who
wants to do a COSE certificate of some type (definitely not in scope of the
current charter).
Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
