I think we have caused unnecessary controversy. I think we should have used a different I-D file name. We want HPKE-like features but using as much of the existing COSE specifications (including COSE_Key) as possible.
I vote for #1. Russ > On Sep 22, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Mike Jones > <[email protected]> wrote: > > As discussed at IETF 114, the HPKE draft uses the COSE_Key public key > representation. The authors described that Ilari Liusvaara had proposed > using a different public key representation, which is detailed in Slide 2 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/materials/slides-114-cose-cose-hpke-00 > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/materials/slides-114-cose-cose-hpke-00>. > As recorded in the minutes > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-114-cose/>, consensus during the > meeting appeared to be in favor of continuing to use COSE_Key. > > This note initiates a consensus call by the chairs on the topic of what > public key format the COSE HPKE specification will use. Working group > members are requested to express their preferences within two weeks of this > note (by Thursday, September 6th) for either: > > 1. Continuing to use COSE_Key > 2. Using the different format proposed by Ilari Liusvaara > 3. Other (please describe in sufficient detail to enable its specification) > > Thank you, > -- Mike (for the COSE chairs) > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
