On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 11:13:01AM -0500, Orie Steele wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 10:59 AM Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:52:07AM -0500, Orie Steele wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 10:48 AM Ilari Liusvaara < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > What does AKP stand for? > > > > Algorithm Key Pair > > > > > I like this suggestion. > > Is it implied that "alg" is REQUIRED for this kty?
Yes, "alg" subtypes the key, so it is required. > (switching topics to your comment about hashing) > > Last I recall there was no guidance on pre-hashing / hash before signing > for PQ signatures... We would want to make sure that if JOSE does that it > aligns with LAMPs / COSE / and ideally also NIST, has something changed > recently on this front? I don't see room for alignment. What would work for one will not work for any others, because the signature frameworks are just different. E.g., COSE has both body and signature headers, JOSE has only signature headers, and PKIX (LAMPS) does not have explicit headers. This makes it necressary to apply different approaches to all three. And the section in NIST ML-SIG draft seems to be just handwaving (and SLH-SIG does *not* have similar section). And no wonder, given how format-specific this stuff is. -Ilari _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
