Mohamed Boucadair 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Michael and Orie, Thanks for the effort put into this specification. Thanks also to Tiru Tirumaleswar Reddy for the OPSDIR review and to the authors for engaging and proposing changes. I went through https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium/pull/25/files and trust this PR will be merged. The explanation about the seed only design choice and also calling out some ML-DSA deployment challenges are appreciated. I also trust the examples were validated. I have very minor comments: # Redundant IANA considerations Not sure why IANA requests are repeated twice in the document (Sections 3/4/5 and then IANA Section). I think it is better to have this in one single place. # Who is the target of this guidance? CURRENT: When registering new algorithms, use of multiple key type parameters for private information is NOT RECOMMENDED. # Citations Several RFCs are provided in the text but are not cited as references, e.g., RFC 9054 and RFC 7518. Please check through the doc. # Regional Matters Please s/FIPS 204/US FIPS 204 in the abstract and s/NIST/US NIST in Section 4 Cheers, Med _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
