Re: [Lake] COSE IANA registrations in EDHOC (Was: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-09.txt)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:43:42AM +0000, Göran Selander wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 2021-08-24, 10:05, "Lake on behalf of Carsten Bormann" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >    I see.
> >
> >    So, you are saying, this will be a “using EDHOC in COSE” specification, 
> 
> Well, others may also have use of the COSE header for CWT/UCCS, and the int value type of 'kid'.
> 
> >  still normative, but referenced from EDHOC as informative as 
> >   EDHOC works without COSE.
> 
> Well, EDHOC is definitely dependent on COSE, but does not require these particular credentials or identifiers.
> 
> >   Yes, it is always hard to position a “using X in Y” draft between the X and Y working groups — after all, the two ends of this draft need 
> >   to fit X and Y, respectively.  If the EDHOC specification truly doesn’t need the contents of this specification, then I can see moving them
> >   into a COSE document.  But I think it is as expedient to keep them together in one document.  The only strong reason to split the 
> >  document would be to avoid a long wait while COSE is deciding on some controversial content of the extracted spec.  Do we foresee such 
> >  a delay?
> 
> Not that I am aware of. Previous discussion in COSE has not indicated that this is contentious. The main thing we haven't discussed is that EDHOC would be updating rfc8152bis-struct.

I think it would invite questions of charter scope if a document from LAKE
attempted to update rfc8152bis-struct; keeping that work in COSE seems
likely to have an easier path, process-wise.

-Ben