Re: [Suit] [COSE] draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:38:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Derek Atkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> And the other two are Expert Review anyway, no specification required!
>     >> You are even listed as one of the experts for COSE Key Types :-)
> 
>     > Yes, I know I am one of the experts for these registries.  However, I
>     > feel I must recuse myself from approval of these.
> 
> Yes, obviously, but the point is that you will know how to ask nicely :-)
> 
>     >> You could also ask for early allocation via the COSE WG, but that
>     >> probably requires the document to be adopted first!
> 
>     > Does it?  Or does the WG just need to approve of the document going
>     > through any of the publication processes?
> 
> If the document isn't adopted, then I don't think the WG chairs can ask the
> AD to approve.  I think that adoption is the only required step; your
> document could take awhile to progress.  IANA will check back on progress for

I think so, too.

> the early allocation, to make sure the document is still of interest.

Yes, a one-year extension with just the chairs' approval and subsequent
ones with the IESG's approval.

>     >> That's what I would do: just ask for the values via Expert Review, and
>     >> live for now, with the a five-bye (encoded) COSE Algorithm code, if
>     >> your market need is urgent.
> 
>     > Yes, I could just request the entries in the registry.  However, I am
>     > trying to be a good netizen; I want to have a document that people can
>     > look at to understand what the registry items mean.
> 
> While you don't have to provide a specification for Expert Review, I think
> that if you *do* that it will get recorded.  If you later on get a 1-byte

I think so, too.

> code allocated then, it's code complexity, but it's not too terrible, I think.
> At some point, your constrained devices will only use the 1-byte code,
> and your non-constrained devices will continue to be tolerant of both.
> 
>     >> Derek Atkins <[e-mail]> wrote: > We have customers who are
>     >> looking to use this technology today, so we > would like to do it in a
>     >> standard way that others could understand.  > Personally, I'm fine
>     >> with an Informational (instead of Standards-track) > publication if
>     >> that would make people happier.  Even so, the RFC Editor > would still
>     >> require approval from this WG as it is within their (the > WG's) area.
>     >> 
>     >> yes, if you went ISE, which would still take awhile.
> 
>     > I am fine going through the ISE, however I suspect that the IESG in
>     > their conflict review would then go and ask this WG about it.  So I

My understanding is that Adrian will be asking that even before the
document gets far enough to need an IESG conflict review.

>     > wanted to bring it up here, first.  What is your definition of
>     > "awhile"?
> 
> Given the conflict review and the typical length of the RFC editor Production
> queue, I would say you are looking at a year before AUTH48, but the early
> allocation could occur much sooner.

Adrian has been pressing the IESG to adhere better to the 4-week timeline
for conflict review responses (modulo IETF meetings, etc.), but given the
xmlv3 cutover and C238 breaking loose, it does seem reasonable to expect
things to get backed up a bit.

-Ben