On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 11:17:32AM +0000, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to get some clarity from the version discussion. > > At the beginning we discussed the following question: Do we need > something other than base mode for HPKE when used with COSE?
IMO, not currently. However, we should ensure, that such things can be added in future without allocating new parameters. Which in turn impiles that HSI (HPKE Sender Info) is either dictionary or polymorphic. However, since each mode is its own special snowflake, I do not see need for IANA registry. > Then, the discussions moved into how to encode future versions of HPKE > into the algorithm identifier. To me the discussion is a bit abstract > since there is (at least to my knowledge) to plan to work on a new > version of HPKE (given that the current version is not old). Situation with future versions is even worse than with auth-MAC: With auth-MAC, one at least knows what information needs to be encoded. But with future versions, nobody even knows what is needed. So beyond ensuring HSI parameter is extensible, there is nothing that can be done. So in summary: - Do just HPKE-v1 base mode for now. - Possibly other stuff in future. - Define HSI so that set of fields can change. - Parametrized by alg. - No need for registry. -Ilari _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
