On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:43:42AM +0000, Göran Selander wrote: > > > > 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.
I think it would invite questions of charter scope if a document from LAKE attempted to update rfc8152bis-struct; keeping that work in COSE seems likely to have an easier path, process-wise. -Ben _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
