> On Mar 8, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Mike Prorock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I believe most people (in retrospect) have rather come to the conclusion that
> polymorphic algorithms were a mistake.
>
> +1 - that seems to be something that folks are finding out
>
> Where the actual "kty" shakes out as we continue to improve the draft is yet
> to be seen. "PQK" made sense at the time as this is dealing with post
> quantum keys and signatures - just as easily we could be looking at two key
> types, probably by family - e.g. one for lattice based, and one for hash
> based signatures, or could just as easily be "OKP" - we opened an issue to
> track that here:
> https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures/issues/48
> <https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures/issues/48>
> and will discuss on our next call.
>
> This is exactly why we wanted the broader input from the COSE WG
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8778.txt
Is there any reason to do things differently for other hash-based signatures?
Russ
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
