Hello COSE group, around a document I'm working on in LAKE[1], questions came up around greasing our use of COSE header maps.
The way they are currently used is that in a place in the protocol
(called ID_CRED_x), one participant sends a COSE header map (or
minimized form thereof, if it is of the shape {/kid/4: ...}) to its
peer, and the peer looks up a credential based on it (or, in the case of
kccs and kcwt, extracts it).
It seems that consensus is forming[2][3] in LAKE that adding GREASE
(i.e., elements that are sent just to see whether the peer ignores
unknown non-critical elements as they should) is out of scope for that
WG. Would it make sense to define a few such keys (numeric and text) to
allow the sender of a COSE header map to verify that it could utilize
extensions?
BR
Christian
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-grease/
[2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/yCKuNcwcZ_9UygHLbipjxYNrtI0
[3]: https://github.com/lake-wg/grease/issues/1
--
We are dreamers, shapers, singers, and makers.
-- Elric
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
