IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Begin Recharter of COSE WG

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 05 April 2020 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347813A0CFC for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AShQrGKADJ2V for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152483A0CF8 for <cose@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE89300B4E for <cose@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ohaf01UfopYS for <cose@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49B5D300A01; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <39d4d5ae-e8cc-56f9-b5d0-436eeef72f40@outer-planes.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 17:52:45 -0400
Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C12F87EA-7C16-4308-813D-F90D667C113F@vigilsec.com>
References: <39d4d5ae-e8cc-56f9-b5d0-436eeef72f40@outer-planes.net>
To: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ArAtE5apg-LS877hufqRPM-B-BQ>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Begin Recharter of COSE WG
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption <cose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cose/>
List-Post: <mailto:cose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 21:52:52 -0000


> This message is to confirm the in-meeting consensus to recharter the
> COSE Working Group.  Given the strong consensus in the meeting, we are
> most concerned with objections to rechartering.
> 
> With all of the chartered work effectively complete, the question is
> raised about what to do next.  In the virtual meeting today
> (2020-04-02), there was much support to keep the COSE Working Group open
> and recharter.
> 
> Jim Schaad has drafted an initial revised [CHARTER].  The executive
> summary of that discussion:
> 
> The working group will recharter to accept a limited set of work:
> 
> * Algorithm definitions with IETF-level consensus and the WG's approval
> * A specific (to-be-determined) set of non-algorithm items (currently
> "compressed certificate encoding")
> 
> If you have objections to rechartering, or have additional items for the
> Working Group to consider in its recharter, Please respond with the
> objections or suggestions the < cose@ietf.org > mailing list by April 17.

I support re-charter, but the  specific (to-be-determined) set of non-algorithm items need to be agreed.  I also agree that certificate compression belongs on the list.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email