Hello Orie, I'm late to the discussion here but I'd like to point out that the Algorithm Key Pair Type does not specify whether "pub" must always be present when a private key is represented.
e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7518.html#section-6.2.2 > In addition to the members used to represent Elliptic Curve public keys, > the following member MUST be present to represent Elliptic Curve private > keys. Currently, all asymmetric JWK formats are defined such that private keys always include their public key components. For AKP that is not the case and the document is silent on the topic. S pozdravem, *Filip Skokan* Hi Paul, I've not been able to keep up with that discussion, but I believe you are correct. At some point we will probably see a similar discussion for ML-KEM and x-wing. It would be unfortunate if COSE/JOSE and LAMPs ended up diverging on the bare key and signature formats for PQC. Regards, OS On Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 11:33 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> <[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > The document looks fine to me, but I'd like to discuss one item. > > It seems private keys MUST be specified as seed. The document justifies > this by linking it to the lamps equivalent doc. But it is my understanding > that there is a discussion there on allowing a format that encompasses seed > or expanded key. I think it would be good to await the outcome there and > ensure capabilities in the specifications are matching. > > Does that make sense, or did I misinterpret anything? > > Paul
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
