I would like to see it as standards track. I would like EAT / RATS to make normative reference to it. Some forms of Attestation use Endorsements to convey a signature verification key to the Verifier and some Endorsements are in the form of an X.509 certificate.
I will present some of this at the RATS virtual interim tomorrow <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2020-rats-06-rats-01/>. Slides are here <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-interim-2020-rats-06-sessa-eat-verification-id-and-other-updates/>. This is why I’ve been so interested in this lately. Also, it seems pretty important for COSE to be usable with the all the X.509 infrastructure out there. LL > On Oct 22, 2020, at 5:18 AM, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > I think the topic should be fairly easily to resolve one way or another. > However, even after having read the reply to Marin's comment I don't think > this > document is published with the right status. > > - The document defines new CBOR attributes, that is standard track work as it > comes out as consensus document from a IETF WG. - It does not define or > document crypto algorithm just refer to existing ones. - The charter item > might > have been reasonable as informational if existing attributes could have been > used. With the choice to define new attributes I think this has entered > standards track. - The status of the document I think will also affect the > value that IANA might assign to these COSE Header Parameters. > > If there are additional considerations I am happy to learn about them. > > Else, I would propose a change of status to proposed standard and redo the > IETF > last call. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
