I have a few comments. Abstract: I suggest that Dilithium be dropped here. In a couple of years, COSE and JOSE implementers will not care about the history of ML-DSA. Also, the Abstract should not include references. I suggest:
This document describes JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) serializations for Module- Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard (ML-DSA), a Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) digital signature scheme defined in FIPS 204. Introduction: Why is the second sentence observing that the thumbprint can be used with other algorithms? Shouldn't the document related to those algorithms handle that topic? Section 4: Figure 1 and Figure 2 both need to explanatory text. Section 5: Why is the last sentence needed? Russ > On Nov 19, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Michael Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > This message starts the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-04.html (ML-DSA for > JOSE and COSE), as was discussed at IETF 121 in Dublin. The WGLC will run > for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 3, 2024. > > Please review and send any comments or feedback to the working group. Even > if your feedback is “this is ready for publication”, please let us know. > > Thank you, > -- Mike and Ivaylo, COSE > Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
