Argh, >2020-11-18 14 Mohit Sethi Changing to proposed standard as requested by the >COSE experts.
I think this might have been triggered by my comment on the COSE list. If that is the case, I would like to clarify that I am not a designated IANA COSE expert and I did not "request" this. I just pointed out that the requested numbers could not be assigned by an informational draft. This is a curve that could benefit from a 1-2 byte COSE identifier, but it will probably also work very well with a 3 byte identifier. In some use cases like EDHOC it does not matter at all as the identifier is not sent on the wire. >At a minimum, since this has been changed from Informational to Standards >Track I think we >should have another IETF Last Call. Making this LWIG document standards track seems strange. The IESG writeup "only a few working group members were able to provide detailed reviews" seems to contradict the "has received significant community review" requirement for standards track. I personally see no need to change the status of this document to standards track. If a 3 byte COSE identifiers are unacceptable it seems better to write a short standards track COSE draft for that part and publish the rest as informational. Cheers, John _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
