Carsten, you wrote:
> And I would prefer that the thumbprints use the same Hash registry that all
> other COSE specs use.
The COSE algorithms registry is used for CBOR representations of algorithms.
The URI is not a CBOR representation - it's an ASCII representation. That's
what the IANA "Named Information Hash Algorithm Registry" provides - which is
why we should use it - just as RFC 9728 does.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2023 12:35 PM
To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; Isobe Kohei <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [COSE] COSE Key Thumbprint URI
On Dec 23, 2023, at 21:11, Michael Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Like Hannes, I disagree with the assertion that the IANA "Named Information
> Hash Algorithm Registry" is not well-maintained. Like any other IANA
> registry, if you want a new entry, create a specification and register it.
> I've created many specification to just that, such as RFC 8230 and RFC 8812.
> If you have an itch, scratch it yourself! It's the IETF way!
Sure.
It just hasn’t happened as much as it has for the COSE algorithms registry,
which is the dose of reality I would like to add.
But my point really is:
> Finally, like Hannes, I would prefer that we continue use the same hash
> algorithms registry as the JWK Thumbprint URI spec [RFC 9728] does for the
> same purpose. Unnecessary differences when doing the same thing should be
> avoided.
And I would prefer that the thumbprints use the same Hash registry that all
other COSE specs use.
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
