[COSE] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I am concerned -- confused may be a better word -- about the status of this
document for several reasons:

(a) The header on this document still says that it is intended to remain in
    the Standards Track -- but the datatracker says that is should be
    Informational.   This is simply a nit.

(b) Except for a note when the publication was requested [1], I didn't find
    any other discussion in the mail archive.  Was the status discussed in
    the WG?

    The Shepherd writeup [2] does say that the status "marks the state of
    consensus at the time of publication, and allows for the flexibility to
    deprecate and obsolete in the future."  Except for potentially a higher
    bar when updating an Internet Standard, the process is the same...

(c) The fact that this document resulted from the split of rfc8152 confuses
    me even more: the "other half" (rfc8152bis-struct) is moving on as an
    Internet Standard and it includes a Normative reference to this document.
    Note that the Normative reference makes sense, but the Informational
    status of this document doesn't...at least to me.  Even though we can
    use DownRefs, it seems unnecessary to "downgrade" this part of the
    document and end up with a downref to an Informational document...

This is a non-blocking comment...I simply don't understand.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/tVDVZtfBhfYsKiqT0kCtkGoL_2U/
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs/shepherdwriteup/

(2) §10.1/§10.2: The references should be changed from rfc8152 to this document.

(3) §10.2 (Changes to "COSE Algorithms" registry)

   IANA is requested to create a new column in the "COSE Algorithms"
   registry.  The new column is to be labeled "Capabilities".  The new
   column is populated with "[kty]" for all current, non-provisional,
   registrations.  It is expected that the documents which define those
   algorithms will be expanded to include this registration, if this is
   not done then the DE should be consulted before final registration
   for this document is done.

I am not sure what is the expectation here; a new column is added and all the
entries are populated with "[kty]" -- so far so good.  What I don't understand
is the part about other "documents...will be expanded to include this
registration".  Does that mean that the other documents need to be updated? 
What should the DE do if the work is not completed?  I am even more confused
because this document doesn't seem to take an action related to that new column
for the algorithms defined here, and the new row (in this same section) doesn't
include the Capabilities column.

(4) §10.2: "Note to IANA: There is an action in
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] which also modifies data in the reference
column."  I didn't see that action in the other document.

(5) I assume that this document (and not -struct) should also update the COSE
Elliptic Curves registry.