Hi, I raised 2 new PRs. I felt we needed to address Simo's comment regarding the choice of algorithms, I used the smaller number as the suggestion. I've also added some text to align with similar text we used for ML-DSA.
https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus/pulls I think these changes might be substantial enough to trigger another WGLC. If the chairs determine they are not needed, I can close the PR and push a new version. Regards, OS On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 1:22 PM Michael Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Orie, Mike, and Hannes – can you please publish a new draft containing the > updated examples? At that point, if no objections are raised within a > week, we’ll proceed to a shepherd review. > > > > Volunteers to shepherd the document are welcome. > > > > -- Mike & > Ivo > > > > *From:* Orie <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2026 2:01 PM > *To:* Simo Sorce <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; cose <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [jose] Re: [COSE] WGLC: draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus-07 (Ends > 2026-04-14) > > > > I merged: https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus/pull/13 > > Regarding the selected algorithms, I think there has not been a lot of > thought about them. > > Perhaps we just test for objections to going with the 2 128s? > > Regards, > > OS > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 10:25 AM Simo Sorce <simo= > [email protected]> wrote: > > I think that there should be also at least one sentence that provides > some rationale about why these three specific parameter sets among the > 12 specified in FIPS-205 were chosen. > > I would expect either just 2 (the 128s) or 4 (2x128s + 2x128f) > parameter sets to be introduced, assuming size/strength is the reason. > > That 3 were selected is curious and requires explanation. > > Simo. > > On Fri, 2026-04-03 at 14:55 +0200, Filip Skokan wrote: > > Furthermore, if you intend to keep JOSE in then please update the JOSE > > examples appendix section with actual working vectors. The existing > > "example" leaves a lot to be desired. > > > > S pozdravem, > > *Filip Skokan* > > > > > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 at 14:40, Filip Skokan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Since this draft registers JOSE algorithms and defines JWK > representations > > > it would be prudent to send its WGLC notice there as well. cc @JOSE WG > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > I appreciate the algorithm set is kept at a minimum. But I still don't > see > > > these as general purpose algorithms that we necessarily "*need"* to > have > > > in JOSE (unlike ML-DSA/FN-DSA). I'll bite tho and say that it doesn't > hurt > > > to have them registered as backup given the novelty and some small > > > uncertainty surrounding the other PQC algs in general. > > > > > > That being said I would welcome it if the draft did mention something > > > along those lines, these algorithms are either targeting a niche > purpose or > > > serve as backup, the former is more likely. General purpose JOSE > libraries > > > shouldn't bother implementing these. I for one certainly won't, being > > > mindful of the library footprint. Also none of the Web Cryptography API > > > implementers currently plan to support them despite being included in > the > > > API's Modern Algorithms < > https://wicg.github.io/webcrypto-modern-algos/> > > > extension. > > > > > > Speaking of which, the Web Cryptography extension will register all > > > remaining SLH-DSA parameter sets in JOSE IANA for JWK representation > > > purposes only (Algorithm Usage Location(s): "JWK"). It currently lists > the > > > ones from this draft too but that's merely because at some point it was > > > uncertain whether this is going to move forward or not. I will update > the > > > extension proposal accordingly depending on what gets published in this > > > draft. > > > > > > S pozdravem, > > > *Filip Skokan* > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 18:58, Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylopetrov= > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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] > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jose mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- > Simo Sorce > Distinguished Engineer > RHEL Crypto Team > Red Hat, Inc > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
