Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Charlie Kaufman for their secdir review (his nits still exist in the draft, btw). Section 4.1, 8.2.2: I don't love the fact that the registry called 'COSE Verifiable Data Structures' is actually an algorithm registry - super confusing. Moreover, the description in the registration template in Section 8.2.2 says nothing about algorithms. In section 4.1, there is a sentence that calls it 'a registry of verifiable data structure algorithms'. Can we change the name of the registry to that? Section 7: While I think it is probably too early for this, it might be wise to have a post quantum section here warning of an eventual shift in algorithms. Depending on how long the proofs and receipts are expected to be valid will determine how soon an algorithm migration should be considered. I would be happy to help write it if that is helpful. Note: I would expect that this includes both the hash (currently only SHA-2 256 is registered) and the signatures. Authors: A nit... Will Orie change his contact details before publication? Seems like it might be better in the long run. _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
