> FWIW I am definitely happy to have Daisuke as a co-author of the COSE-HPKE draft.
Thank you :-) but I wish we could define JWK representation at the same time... I am not insistent on my proposal being an independent specification, but like Ilari, I believe that the new key type "HPKE-KEM" is necessary and important. If we are to define a new kty, I think it would be better to define JWK and COSE_Key in the same document, which is why I proposed it as an independent document from COSE-HPKE. On the other hand, I do not want the development of the COSE-HPKE spec to be delayed due to the discussion about this key representation. If the majority opinion is that we should focus on the COSE_Key representation, I think it would be fine to merge my draft into COSE-HPKE. If there is enough time, I think it would be good to have a vote at the next IETF meeting on whether or not to define the JWK representation at the same time (in other words, whether or not to merge my draft into COSE-HPKE) and decide on the direction. I will gladly follow the outcome. Best, AJITOMI Daisuke 2023年5月2日(火) 1:50 Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>: > FWIW I am definitely happy to have Daisuke as a co-author of the > COSE-HPKE draft. > > Am 01.05.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Laurence Lundblade: > > Maybe Ajitomi is added as an author to COSE-HPKE if some of the text > and CBOR is brought in? > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
