Hi Hannes and all, Just one point for now.
> At the beginning we discussed the following question: Do we need something other than base mode for HPKE when used with COSE? I have no objection to focusing on the BASE mode this time. Regards, Daisuke 2022年12月9日(金) 22:16 Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]>: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
