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

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 31 July 2019 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC73E120077; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:38:10 -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 L70PDDT6tZB4; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD6112008D; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BD2380BE; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:37:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7781205; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Derek Atkins <>
cc: "suit\" <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <835.1562080969@localhost> <>
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:38:05 -0400
Message-ID: <28628.1564601885@localhost>
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 19:38:11 -0000

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

    >> 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
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
    > 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.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]        |   ruby on rails    [