I see. So, you are saying, this will be a “using EDHOC in COSE” specification, still normative, but referenced from EDHOC as informative as EDHOC works without COSE.
Yes, it is always hard to position a “using X in Y” draft between the X and Y working groups — after all, the two ends of this draft need to fit X and Y, respectively. If the EDHOC specification truly doesn’t need the contents of this specification, then I can see moving them into a COSE document. But I think it is as expedient to keep them together in one document. The only strong reason to split the document would be to avoid a long wait while COSE is deciding on some controversial content of the extracted spec. Do we foresee such a delay? Grüße, Carsten > On 2021-08-24, at 09:35, Göran Selander > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Combining the responses from Carsten and Michael, and including COSE. > >> On 2021-08-23, 19:17, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Göran Selander wrote: >>> * The key identifier ‘kid’ is extended to also support CBOR ints, >>> making ‘kid2’ introduced in -08 redundant. This change was based on >>> feedback from the COSE WG [1]. One potential next step is to move all >>> COSE-related IANA registrations from this draft to a separate COSE >>> draft and make an informative reference. >> >>> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/qGngdte4s3SEZEKM-xBEoXYUgKc/ >> >> I understanding splitting the document so that it is easier to update, >> but I think that the reference should be normative. >> >> I think we want to publish the documents together. > > > > On 2021-08-23, 21:42, "Carsten Bormann" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> One potential next step is to move all COSE-related IANA registrations from >>> this draft >> to a separate COSE draft and make an informative reference. >> >> Why? >> > > > The registrations in question are in section 8.5 - 8.7 of > draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-09: The extension of 'kid' to int (both as a reference > and in the referenced object) and the registration of 'cwt' to signify that > the value is a CWT or UCCS. > > A few reasons have been mentioned for moving this from EDHOC to a COSE draft, > I don't know what is most relevant, if anything: > > * In case of 'kid', these registrations would make EDHOC an update of > draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct (RFC-to-be 9052). I don't know if LAKE or > COSE wants that. > > * These registrations are independent of the base EDHOC protocol, but enables > the use of CWT and UCCS as credentials, and more compact identification of > credentials. Therefore they could instead be referenced from EDHOC. I don't > see why the reference needs to be normative. > > * These registrations belong to the COSE domain and may gain better awareness > and reviews if put into a COSE draft. > > > Göran > > > > > > > > > -- > Lake mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
