[jose] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms

[Michael Jones <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your WGLC feedback, Brian and Simo.  As we also replied to Neil, draft -03 should now be unambiguous about which parts of the problem space the specification is solving and not.  The statements implying that every aspect of the problem space are solved were removed, and replaced by a discussion of which parts of the space *are* being solved now *and* how future specifications could solve more of the problems, when desired.

Practically, this specification provides fully-specified alternatives to all registered JOSE and COSE polymorphic signature algorithms.  In the encryption space, it defines a limited number of fully-specified ECDH algorithms for both JOSE and COSE, while providing clear guidance in a new appendix how future specifications could register additional fully-specified ECDH algorithms when needed.  The encryption section has also been augmented with a much more comprehensive discussion about what it means for encryption algorithms to be fully-specified.

				Best wishes,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Simo Sorce <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 9:14 AM
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=[e-mail]>; Michael Jones <[e-mail]>
Cc: Neil Madden <[e-mail]>; Karen ODonoghue <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [jose] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms

On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 12:15 -0600, Brian Campbell wrote:
> 
> I might humbly suggest that the prospective updates, while perhaps 
> mostly editorial, are fairly fundamental to the content of the draft 
> itself and should be applied to the draft prior to (a new) WGCL. 
> Resolving the draft's many outright self-contradictory statements 
> would likely go a long way towards avoiding feedback at the level of 
> "this draft is still deeply confused and not anywhere near ready for 
> publication" and facilitate a more productive last call cycle that's a better use of everyone's time.

100% this, it is there is rough agreement on the direction, but the wording of the draft is nowhere near what is needed for a WGLC. 

--
Simo Sorce
Distinguished Engineer
RHEL Crypto Team
Red Hat, Inc