[COSE] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-09: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Added one comment in the PR about a missing s/describes/specifies/

Regards

-éric

From: Orie <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, 11 October 2025 at 15:43
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-09: (with COMMENT)
Hi Éric,

I've addressed your comments along with other IESG comments here:

https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium/pull/26

Let me know if you think I missed anything.

Inline for the rest.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 1:56 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-09
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Lucas Prabel for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract & section 1

s/This document describes/This document *specifies*/

I took your suggestion.


### Section 3

Should `JWK` be expanded ? Or a reference be added ?

Great catch, I expanded this on first reference.


### Section 4

s/by NIST so/by US NIST so/ as not every reader lives in the USA.

Done.


### Section 5

Sentence such as `This document requests the registration` should rather be in
the IANA considerations. Let's use here "This document specifies..." or similar.

Done.


Let's be consistent and use double quotes around parameter names, e.g., in `The
ctx parameter` (this could happen in other places as well) while `The "pub"
parameter` is also used.

I chose to push the parameters to use the ` syntax instead, since json already uses a lot of quotes.


Out of curiosity, where are the -44, -65, and -87 come from ? These numbers do
not seem to be linked to key sizes.

These are from the parameter sets (dimensions of A), see: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.204.pdf

[cid:ii_mgmboxk00]


### Section 9.2

As indicated by idnits, reference NIST-PQC-2022 is never used, so, let's remove
it.

Done.