On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:41:17PM +0900, AJITOMI Daisuke wrote: > Hi Laurence, > > Thanks for your comments. I will think more about the description of alg > and revise it (as Ilari also pointed out a mistake about alg). > > ... this document either has to be information or we have to be OK with the > > downref. > > > OHTTP and ECH are also standards track and I think the downref can be > accepted.
It will be accepted. What could wind up being a bit more process stuff is that the draft also concerns JOSE, which now has an active WG (looks like since about 5 days ago). Probably not something that will concern document authors too much (more of Document Shepard, WG chairs, Area Directors thing). > 2023年1月31日(火) 4:35 Laurence Lundblade <[email protected]>: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Curiously, 9052 only allows on algorithm to be specified per key. This > > draft allows for multiple HPKE algorithms (one KEM, multiple KDFs and > > multiple AEADs). Seems a little out of line from 9052, but that seems OK > > given the nature of HPKE. Generically, the algorithms can interact badly. However, HPKE will not interact badly with HPKE. > > This document is standards track. It kind of makes normative reference to > > HPKE which is not standards track. That seems like it might be allowed, but > > a bit of a stretch. Personally, I’d like to see HPKE in a standards track > > document, but it seems unlikely that will happen before this document gets > > published, so this document either has to be information or we have to be > > OK with the downref. Downrefs are meant for situations like this. I did author one PS RFC with downref to CFRG informational RFC, I don't think I was even asked to justify that. -Ilari _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
