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

Benjamin Kaduk <> Thu, 01 August 2019 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4311200FF; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DOLNT8zxN2-A; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69E2120043; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x710B3BF009876 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:11:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 19:11:02 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: Derek Atkins <>, "" <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <835.1562080969@localhost> <> <28628.1564601885@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <28628.1564601885@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Suit] [COSE] draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:11:10 -0000

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:38:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Derek Atkins <> 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 <> 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.