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

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 02 July 2019 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A0D1202D0; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OCoXOX0RQAnI; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2C7B1202AF; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E102380BE; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:20:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD50BE6; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Derek Atkins <>,
cc: "suit\" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:22:49 -0400
Message-ID: <835.1562080969@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Suit] 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: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 15:24:01 -0000

Derek, looking at the IANA Considerations of
draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa, it seems that you need a number in:

1) COSE Algorithms -- registry
2) COSE Key Types -- registry

and several in the
3) COSE Key Type Parameters -- registry

For the first, you can have:
    Integer values greater than 65535	Expert Review

And the other two are Expert Review anyway, no specification required!
You are even listed as one of the experts for COSE Key Types :-)

{If my reading is correct, you can also use strings longer than 2-bytes
without registration with IANA, but that has an operational (maintaining
legacy code) and bytes-on-the-wire impact should you be allocated a shorter
code later on}

You could also ask for early allocation via the COSE WG, but that probably
requires the document to be adopted first!

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.

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.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-