[COSE] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-07

Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 28 November 2019 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AC612088A; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 06:48:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig.all@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.111.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <157495251138.5727.13087185020265487399@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 06:48:31 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/KSHKQkzCa9xuh5WAtAwPkNT2Jjc>
Subject: [COSE] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-07
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:48:31 -0000

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready


This document specifies conventions for using the Hierarchical Signature System
(HSS) / Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) hash-based signature algorithm with the
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) syntax.  The HSS/LMS algorithm is
described in RFC 8554. The document targets Standards Track, this the Normative
Reference to the Informational RFC 8554 is a downref. The shepherd write-up
makes a convincing argument why this downref is acceptable, maybe this
justification could have been mentioned explicitly in the text. Otherwise this
is a clear document, and Section 5 deals with the Operational Considerations. A
full RFC 5706 review does not apply, but I do not see any operational or
manageability issues that would prevent approval from the OPS-DIR perspective.