(About target audience: This draft is proposing to deprecate algorithms in the COSE IANA registry. It would be great if it by default was circulated also on the COSE WG mailing list to enable a timely discussion among those affected.)
With reference to a previous thread on this topic: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03799.html The term “deprecated” is still used in this draft with a different meaning compared to RFC8996 and RFC9325. It doesn’t help that you in this document point out that you are using the word with a different meaning that people are used to, very much fewer people will read this document than those that stumble on the term used in registries and understand it from other contexts. Moreover, this overload of terminology is actually unnecessary: Section 4.4 > The terms "Deprecated" and "Prohibited" as used by JOSE and COSE > registrations are currently undefined. So, in fact this provides a unique opportunity to disambiguate and avoid the otherwise inevitable confusion that will come up over and over again arising from the use of the same term with different meanings. A number of perfectly good alternative terms were suggested in the referenced mail thread. Moreover, for systems that makes use of the COSE IANA registry and specifies algorithms with enough parameters to make them completely determined, for example EDHOC cipher suites, there is no need to change or abandon the use of the current algorithms. Hence the recommendation (“SHOULD”) in the definition does not apply to such systems, and that circumstance should be stated as an exception to the recommendation. In summary * use a different term * make it clear that current algorithms may be used in case a separate specification adds the necessary information to make them fully specified Göran From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 22 August 2024 at 11:10 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [COSE] FW: [jose] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms (Fully Specified Algorithms) Forwarding to the COSE list as the document updates both RFC 8152 and RFC 9053. Cheers, John From: Karen ODonoghue <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 16:12 To: JOSE WG <[email protected]> Subject: [jose] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms (Fully Specified Algorithms) JOSE working group members, This email initiates a second working group last call for the Fully Specified Algorithms document: https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjohn.mattsson%40ericsson.com%7C4d5ca1448df945ce272908dcc1eb446e%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638598463418037480%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lC1d%2Bvw9fTh%2FG2brNNztghIYFbp4pnGwjqvfN%2Bbqrn8%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms/> The authors have updated the draft based on WGLC comments and discussions at IETF 120, and the chairs have polled the working group about the readiness for WGLC. Seeing no opposition, we've decided to proceed with a second WGLC. Please review the document in detail and reply to this message (keeping the subject line intact) with your opinion on the readiness of this document for publication and any additional comments that you have. This will be a three week WGLC. Please submit your responses by 13 September 2024. Thank you, Karen (for the JOSE WG chairs) _______________________________________________ jose 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]
