Hi Mike,
The proposed resolutions to your comments have been incorporated into
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13.html.
Thanks again,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 4:58 AM
To: Mike Bishop <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Mike Bishop's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-11: (with COMMENT)
Thanks for reviewing the specification, Mike, and for your useful comments. My
replies are inline below, prefixed by "mbj>".
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 4:32 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on
draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-11: (with COMMENT)
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.)
mbj> The update is deprecating the polymorphic algorithms registered by 8037.
I'll will update the specification to say that.
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?
mbj> Exactly. I would have preferred naming alignment but it's
mbj> particularly unfortunate that COSE registered names like "ES256" with a
different meaning than the corresponding JOSE algorithms with the same name.
The COSE ones are polymorphic. The JOSE ones are not. Thus, the need to
introduce different names in COSE. Whereas it doesn't make sense to add those
to JOSE, because the existing names already do the right thing and are in
widescale use. Changing the algorithm identifier would be a breaking change to
JOSE
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
