Göran, John, Jeremy, and Carsten, thank you for your WGLC feedback on the topic of algorithms being deprecated. As Carsten noted, the terms "Deprecated" and "Prohibited" not actually being defined as used by JOSE and COSE is a root cause of people having different interpretations of the intent.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-03.html#name-defining-deprecated-and-pro defines these terms for use by JOSE and COSE, and does so in a way that requires no changes to existing COSE or JOSE registrations, and that should address the ambiguities causing concern to Göran and possibly others. Thanks again for your useful input! -- Mike -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:58 AM To: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Jones <[email protected]>; Jeremy O'Donoghue <[email protected]>; Apple Inc. <[email protected]>; Karen ODonoghue <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [COSE] Re: [Lake] [jose] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms On 14. Jun 2024, at 11:08, John Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, COSE has already aligned with how the rest of the IETF like BCP 195 > (RFC8996 and RFC9325) uses the term deprecated. I think it would be good if > JOSE did the same. It would be useful to have a document where the term is actually defined. RFC 8996 talks about deprecated, but then uses “Do not use” as the actual definitive text. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ 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]
