Re: [dispatch] IETF 116 - do you have something for DISPATCH?

Christopher Allen <> Thu, 02 March 2023 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA816C15171E for <>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qoCveD5tKxc for <>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25BE5C14F6EB for <>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a25so3384456edb.0 for <>; Thu, 02 Mar 2023 14:35:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; t=1677796538; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UjxXqCrjmdXEjPRCFlIJ6wPCvAwrsyFy43PGPoRqG4o=; b=4+HqDIvAW9FmuSEp3r38kkk8uXVoettAmv9dBYSe7NySGRnYLrD3Z+bp0XbxKVqlqV 8l0jqS0F7/ZOo/P4P5zXfJTfwQU8CrygQFF/T86ESbHGl7UiihZ8P1kaJfxlLRLy66Sa e5MSrSl0Ueul9A+42IJsuRSIDgqtoUBUi5c6VfSw3oJiZXkzUQunh7GgEFDTd8d+nb9K adVGyOjHdJd/DfqbjmriSJlrvRJqP4YYMkccePzMNse9eEAVtM8RZKmwcsnm5oYeg9bN aIeFkv+RCwGfMCQZlni8FXp0+dh5dzGIE51k/O2kYp0am78K0Ag2iT6p/5m996IBSyz2 LP/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; t=1677796538; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UjxXqCrjmdXEjPRCFlIJ6wPCvAwrsyFy43PGPoRqG4o=; b=s9q/2IfZA/hRRWL4aU2Gqr+kWwIhkhEmpgqCK9g2F28enaTNZymLZWpRJf3Uw93wGV zt+PxLBTqbHyOLwQgf8UUsr8okDKa2rRUPepkUPU93KmC3nNQ939iSSSKtqRxZik7bjh Jmki143J2QXHH2f4s6S2QZBYjUieXIAw4DAXNbgiMtKe9GcCTF5n2bbaWmxkAjTzT9WI Z9bvrm0tiA6BOaqOLAWOhKOVLaRig65xf+cS8pSGdl99FSxw4qSGZ8cVlC6H5kPO1FAB kh0ebbSoRxc81tYrGnN2+HTIuMVMfmFAtTtV3oCZbvmyNNygtyxy77RsK/EDO69EtwQW u9uQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKV/mbenJ4vPSE6YvSm+hWmaKVqaIg2hMgi7PkCngSkGMK33Ga77 RdURgqQOGfbLzy95ZsXB+grSpjxqAKONhdwFFACNqsDq0vVfqvliafY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9d+WnBtZG5wtgCgNFJgZ9cgg5an3fgzH3aLKS8n1ItCVaG4KtGtOmPFlFmInxNjOJedyAffXD0gnaz5OtKYBo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6d55:b0:8f3:9ee9:f1e2 with SMTP id a21-20020a1709066d5500b008f39ee9f1e2mr2002387ejt.5.1677796538318; Thu, 02 Mar 2023 14:35:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Christopher Allen <>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 14:35:27 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>
Cc:,, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ac167605f5f272e7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF 116 - do you have something for DISPATCH?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 22:35:43 -0000

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:02 AM Dale R. Worley <> wrote:

> Contacting the chair(s) of the CBOR WG(s) would be a start.  You might
> also search the IETF mailing list archive for "dCBOR" and "deterministic
> CBOR" to see what mailing lists have discussed it.  Or joining any
> relevant WGs and posting notices to their mailing lists.

Thanks. We have attempted to contact various chairs, but given the
challenges of mail volume, spam, and centralization of mail providers, I
worry that the lack of response to date from them, that they are not even
seeing the emails. For instance, I've found with IETF lists that I can't
use gmail the way I normally do, and have to send differently.

> Finally, we would like advice from Dispatch on the best way to register
> our
> > cryptographic-focused CBOR tags used in Envelope with IANA, namely
> whether
> > we should do so now, or whether we should wait for later in the IETF
> > process.
> I've followed the CBOR work some, and in general there's no shortage of
> tags.  So registering it early is likely to be OK.  I see from
> that tags
> <32768 are "Specification Required" and tags >=32768 are "First come
> first served".  That suggests that if you expect to use a tag, and the
> tag already has a clear, frozen definition, you might as well register
> it now with its specification.  This works especially well if the tag
> may have uses in other applications.

We are hoping to at least get tags in the smaller 200 range, as the
requirements for tags (in theory) suggest that a published spec is
sufficient, and thus our I-D should qualify (there are certainly others in
that range that don't even have that!). We have listed our requests for
them in our I-D under IANA considerations

However, in particular with the core envelope tag, having it be even
smaller could be quite advantageous, as some of our developers are using
very constrained silicon where every byte counts. As the design of
envelopes is "envelopes of envelopes," there can be quite a few of these
tags. This would require support from a working group (or another standards
org, which may also be possible).

OTOH, if further work on Gordian Envelope is likely to change the
> details of the specifications of your tag, you aren't violating the
> rules if you register it FCFS; few will care if you update the
> definition or abandon it entirely.  (Does the length of the tag matter
> in your usage?)
> ("Gordian Envelope" sounds similar to letterlocking, which has been in
> the blogosphere recently!)

Yes! In concept, it is. We have a a short video introducing our concepts at, and you'll see some
paper-world examples. I've been seeking a CC-BY photo of a letter locking
envelope to add to our imagery ;-)

-- Christopher Allen