Hi Roman, I've addressed your feedback along with other IESG comments here:
https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium/pull/26 Please let me know if I missed anything. Inline for the rest. On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-09: 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-dilithium/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you to Russ Housley for the GENART review. > > ** Editorial. A number of references in the document are not formal > references. For example: > > -- Section 4, “FIPS 204” vs. “[FIPS 204]” (multiple instances) > I think I fixed all these. > > -- Section 8.1.1, “RFC 9053 and RFC 9054” vs. “[RFC9053] and [RFC9054]” > (multiple instances) > I addressed this. > > ** Section 8.1.1.* -- Why is the change control entity specific named > here, but > it is in the JOSE registrations? > Good catch, probably a copy paste error on my side. > > ** Section 8.1.4.4.* -- These registration have a row with “Value > registry: > [IANA.jose] Algorithms”. That is not in the RFC7518 template or in the > production > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml#web-signature-encryption-algorithms > registry > Another good catch, I have corrected this.
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
