> On 2021-08-24, 10:05, "Lake on behalf of Carsten Bormann"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>
> I see.
>
> So, you are saying, this will be a “using EDHOC in COSE” specification,
Well, others may also have use of the COSE header for CWT/UCCS, and the int
value type of 'kid'.
> still normative, but referenced from EDHOC as informative as
> EDHOC works without COSE.
Well, EDHOC is definitely dependent on COSE, but does not require these
particular credentials or identifiers.
> 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?
Not that I am aware of. Previous discussion in COSE has not indicated that this
is contentious. The main thing we haven't discussed is that EDHOC would be
updating rfc8152bis-struct.
Göran
> 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
--
Lake mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
