I support adoption (I am an author). Inline:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:07 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, thank you for this draft. I think it's ready for adoption. > > I think that should merge tables 2 and 6 so that the JOSE and COSE > allocations are in the same place. > > Yes, same comment as before I think we can condense, similar to: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8812#section-3.1 > I assume that the example private key matches the example public key? > Yes, here is the code used to generate the test vectors: https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures/blob/main/test-vectors/suites/dilithium-pqcrypto/sanity-test.js#L33 Obviously, we should be cautious about trusting early implementations, and some cross testing with other libraries should be done. > I guess that the COSE IANA Actions are still TBD. > Will you be doing COSE examples? > > Yes, the primary challenge remains alignment on the path forward for tags for JWK and JWS parameter names. I will be sending a message to the list of my learning from the approach taken with HPKE, and if we should adopt those conventions or "stick to the old ways". We have already had some good feedback on this, but I think a dedicated thread will help resolve remaining ambiguity. > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS* > > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > -- *ORIE STEELE* Chief Technical Officer www.transmute.industries <https://www.transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
