I support the publication of this document. I just have a few non-blocking comments:
- The motivation stated for the use of AKP seems ambiguous to me: "This ensures compatibility across different cryptographic algorithms that use AKP for key representation." What does "compatibility" mean here? - I would not use the term "nonces" in Section 5.4, which doesn’t appear in FIPS 205. - "KeyValidate" isn't defined in the draft. - Would it be relevant to also mention alternative solutions for JOSE in Section 5.1, as only COSE Hash Envelope is discussed? Thanks to the authors for working on this document, Best, Lucas From: Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]> Sent: 24 March 2026 18:58 To: cose <[email protected]> Cc: Cose Chairs Wg <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [COSE] WGLC: draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus-07 (Ends 2026-04-14) Dear COSE WG members, As discussed during IETF 125, this message starts a WG Last Call (WGLC) for: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus/ Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceeding with the publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> in copy. Please provide rationale for support and explanations or suggestions for objections. This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-04-14 Thank you, -- Mike and Ivo COSE co-chairs Please note: Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be found at [3]. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
