+1 for split out.
I’m reiterating my point that we want to have some older items in the registry
(not necessarily in this particular document). E.g., SHA-1. So we would need
to find a balance with the sentence "Algorithms that do not meet the security
requirements of
the community and the messages structures should not be
registered.” in Section 16.11 of RFC 8152. We do have a “deprecated”
value for the “recommended" column…
Grüße, Carsten
> On Feb 26, 2019, at 01:38, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A version of what this document would look like can be found here
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01
>
> Jim
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: COSE <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM
>> To: cose <[email protected]>
>> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document
>>
>> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash
>> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10.
>>
>> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them from draft-
>> ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to stabilize more
>> quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group agrees with
>> separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that consists of
>> Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm
>> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509.
>>
>> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash
>> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, please
>> indicate why not.
>>
>>
>> - Ivaylo and Matthew
>> COSE Chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
