On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:53:48AM -0600, Brian Campbell wrote: > > Messages in this thread seem to be getting lost somewhere and I don't think > it's just me as they don't seem to show up in the archives > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jose/> either.
It is not just you, my message also appears to have gotten lost (and it is not just this thread or list either, a message to another IETF list also got lost). > But I tried to send something yesterday with the observation that the > "no" in question here in the "COSE Recommended" column in the table > in Sec 2.2 is inconsistent with the values in the COSE algorithm > registration requests in Sec 3.2 that have a "yes". Furthermore I'll > observe that the current registry > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#algorithms> > has a recommended value of "yes" for -8/EdDSA and it would seem a > bit odd to have "no" as recommended for -50/Ed25519 and -51/Ed448 > which this draft is effectively trying to position as replacements > for -8/EdDSA. Well, Ed448 is much rarer than Ed25519, so those might have different values, but if EdDSA was "yes", then presumably Ed25519 should be too. But looking at the COSE algorithm registry, seems like most things that do not have "yes" are cryptographically suspect or a bit exotic. However, -40 is still recommended despite being SHA-1 signature. So Ed448 being recommended would fit with existing values. -Ilari _______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
