Göran Selander wrote:
    > It isn't clear to me when to follow the guidance in [1] and when to
    > make an exception. Just because there is one exception doesn't seem
    > like reason enough to register bespoke bundlings.

Perhaps the WG needs to better understand the request in order to think about
whether or not you should grant an exception.
I guess that the request includes a bundling of things.
Perhaps the requestor just believes that they must do that, but didn't intend
to create an exception?

    > There are different principles in action here. Security is one, where a
    > bundling is made to ensure suitable combinations.  Structure and
    > economy of code points seems to be another, where it may become an
    > issue managing the numbers if every potential bundling of parameters
    > can get a unique assignment.

Agreed.

    > 2. Another point relates to how specifications use COSE code
    > points. For example, [1] recommends the use of deterministic ECDSA. If
    > that is not used, is that reason to register another ECDSA code point?

Yes, but not necessarily a short one :-)

    > Or, if the cofactor of the curve is not equal to 1, is that reason to
    > register another ECDSA code point? In other words, to what extent is
    > the IANA number registration bundled with certain properties for which
    > there is no register?

    > An alternative to make new assignments is that the referencing document
    > re-uses existing code points and specifies how they are used, including
    > why and how deviations are made from the math or the recommendations.

That would seem to lead to interoperability issues, and also complexity for
those creating reuseable libraries.

    > 3. ECDH-EE is not specified in [1], whereas ECDH-ES and ECDH-SS are
    > carefully distinguished in the registries. I would be hesitant to
    > register ECDH-EE algorithms without any supporting specification
    > describing how it is expected to be used in general. What does the WG
    > think?

I think that the use case needs to be clear.


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to