Thanks for the quick response, Carsten. Using "HPKE-v1-BASE" is fine for me.
Ciao Hannes -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 12:45 PM To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [COSE] HPKE versions On 9. Dec 2022, at 12:17, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am OK with registering “HPKEv1-BASE” as the algorithm id since I don’t see > much difference to the currently proposed “HPKE”. While HPKE doesn’t actually seem to have versions, I would be OK with this, as it makes it quite clear that we do not need to jam any revision of HPKE into the same algorithm-ID (*). (Note that the “version-label” that is used in used in LabeledExtract() and LabeledExpand() but not otherwise defined in RFC 9180 is "HPKE-v1”, so we probably should keep that second dash in there, even if it actually is just human-readable information in the registry.) Grüße, Carsten (*) well, unless we want to make a forward-compatible (**) revision work with old systems. But we can cross that bridge if we ever get to it. (**) * Backward compatibility = old data, new system. * Forward compatibility = new data, old system. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
