Hi Chris!
Thanks for carefully reviewing the draft. I have updated it accordingly.
Regarding the implementations, I was not planning to add an
implementation status section to the draft but you can find them here:
- Orie: https://github.com/tradeverifyd/cose-hpke
- Daisuke: https://github.com/dajiaji/python-cwt
- Mine:
https://github.com/hannestschofenig/t_cose/blob/new_hpke/GUIDE_COSE_HPKE.md
There may be others but those implementations were used for interop
testing and for the test vectors in the draft.
Ciao
Hannes
Am 27.06.2026 um 17:42 schrieb Christopher Inacio:
Hello,
First, thanks for the well constructed draft, it’s quite readable.
I have some questions and comments for my review:
* Section 3.3.2, this line/paragraph is stated twice:
`The COSE_recipient structure is computed for each recipient.`
* Section 4: can this paragraph
`As a guideline for ciphersuite submissions to the IANA COSE algorithm
registry, the designated experts must only register combinations of
(KEM, KDF, AEAD) triple that constitute valid combinations for use
with HPKE, the KDF used should (if possible) match one internally used
by the KEM, and components should not be mixed between global and
national standards.`
be turned into a sub-section possibly and labaled “Designated Expert
Guidance”? That really helps any further disagreements about possible
future registrations.
* I will agree with the Shepherd write up (thanks for the diligence in
preparing it): an "implementation status” section would be nice. I
certainly will NOT block if this doesn’t happen.
Thanks,
—
Chris Inacio
SEC AD
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
