Hi Laurence,

That sounds great!

- Ivaylo


On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 9:11 PM Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]>
wrote:

> We had a good discussion on key / cert identification for EAT / RATS at
> our virtual interim meeting today. There seems to be consensus support for
> use of cose-x509.
>
> LL
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to