RFC 9053 as information doesn’t seem right to me either. In addition to the issues with the IANA registry John mentions:
- Much of this text was taken from RFC 8152 that was standards track - It uses a lot of 2119 language - It must be adhered to for interoperability Here’s an example of text from 9053 that doesn’t seem informational to me: The signature algorithm results in a pair of integers (R, S). These integers will be the same length as the length of the key used for the signature process. The signature is encoded by converting the integers into byte strings of the same length as the key size. The length is rounded up to the nearest byte and is left padded with zero bits to get to the correct length. The two integers are then concatenated together to form a byte string that is the resulting signature. I also think HPKE, RFC 9180 should have been standards track for these reasons. LL > On Jan 10, 2023, at 3:34 AM, John Mattsson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I just saw that RFC 9053 is Informational but did a lot of changes to IANA > registries that require standards action. Was this discussed or was it > missed? I cannot see that there are any exceptions to “Standards Track or BCP > only” (RFC 8126), but maybe I miss something… > > Cheers, > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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
