Hi,
The updated version of the draft was published on the 9 march, but we're still
waiting for the shepherd writeup ?
Best regards,
Jean-Marc Desperrier
-Message d'origine-
De : COSE De la part de Ivaylo Petrov
Envoyé : mardi 25 février 2020 15:46
À : cose
Cc :
Hi,
I hope you can hear back from the expert about ietf-cose-x509 quickly.
Meanwhile in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10, for the informal prototype test event
of the current draft of ISO 18013-5 we organized this week-end, we used the
value 33 for x5chain that Jim proposed. Let's hope we don't have
> De : Jim Schaad
>> From: DESPERRIER Jean-Marc
>> The other remark is the fact that only the secp***r1 curves can be
>> used for ECDSA signature, which is a big constraint for algorithm agility.
>> I would support having an optional signed header to specify an
>
Hi, I'm neutral with regard to the decision about a standalone hash document,
however I'd like to point that as ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10 has now decided to
go forward with using COSE inside the ISO 18013-5 document, we too would have a
need for early assignment of values, to be able to
an alternative EC
curve to use in replacement of the defaut secp one.
Or if this doesn't work, have additional signature scheme for using a different
curve family.
Br,
Jean-Marc
-Message d'origine-
De : Jim Schaad
Envoyé : lundi 21 janvier 2019 06:20
À : DESPERRIER Jean-Marc ; 'cose
I support adoption of this document, from the perspective of using it in the
ISO/IEC CD 18013-5 standard currently under development, currently being
reorganized for an extensive use of cbor.
Will stable values be reserved soon after adaptation for the TBD values
currently in the document ?
