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

[Derek Atkins <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

Again, sorry for the delay in responding.  I've had a lot of $DAYJOB
deadlines which have taken over and some things have fallen through the
cracks.  Too many balls in the air, so to speak.

Comments are inline below..

Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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

Correct.

> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#algorithms
>
> 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 :-)

Yes, I know I am one of the experts for these registries.  However, I
feel I must recuse myself from approval of these.

> {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}

Yes, which is another reason I'd rather get something right.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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
wanted to bring it up here, first.  What is your definition of "awhile"?

Thanks,

> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [e-mail]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant