Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What is the update to 8037? This specification notes the changes to 7518 and 9053, but doesn't state a change to 8037. (I suspect it's intended to be Section 5, but that defines behavior for the new algorithms in this document; it does not modify the algorithms specified in 8037.) Why are the registered names for COSE not aligned with the ones that already exist for JOSE (e.g. ESP256 in COSE vs. ES256 in JOSE)? I assume this has to do with the fact that the currently registered polymorphic entry already has the name ES256, but then why not update the name for JOSE to align? JOSE does not appear to have corresponding entries for Brainpool curves. Is there a reason to define them for COSE and not JOSE? Minor nits: - In the abstract, "Whereas" doesn't really add anything. Just start with "It". - In Section 1, the exclamation mark seems unnecessary after "For instance, with EdDSA, it is not known which of the curves Ed25519 and/or Ed448 are supported!" - In Sections 3.x, "This section discusses them." is unnecessary. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
