> On Jun 23, 2021, at 8:32 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23. Jun 2021, at 18:42, Mike Jones > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I believe that we should create a policy requiring that all future algorithm >> registrations should be non-polymorphic. Furthermore, I believe we should >> consider defining and registering new non-polymorphic algorithm identifiers >> so that use of the existing polymorphic algorithm identifiers can be avoided >> and deprecated. > > While I can’t see anything wrong with registering “ciphersuite” style > algorithm identifiers like ES256k, there also is nothing wrong with “pure” > algorithm identifiers. > They just can’t be used with protocols that expect the full ciphersuite to be > specified in one number.
They also won’t work with APIs that expects a ciphersuite to be specified. For example, an API that take an integer that is a COSE algorithm identifier and a byte buffer or byte stream of some sort that is the actual data to be signed. LL _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
