Right. I think the main thing we lose from going from 3 numbers to 1 is parsability. If the algorithms are meant to be treated as opaque strings / numbers and never parsed, then the single number approach (aligned with cose registration requests) seems like the best path forward to me.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:42 AM Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 12:12:13AM +0000, Mike Ounsworth wrote: > > > > Short-forms over the wire are also fine. I have a slight preference > for `HPKE-0` rather than `HPKE10-1` because A) if you have to look it > up, then you have to look it up, and B) this scheme may not extend well > to hybrid KEMs. > > The scheme (IIRC, the example was HPKE-10-1-1) extends trivially to > hybrid KEMs. Since XWING is HPKE KEM id 0x647a: > > XWING+HKDF-SHA256+AES256GCM is HPKE-647a-1-2 > XWING+HKDF-SHA256+CHACHA20POLY1305 is HPKE-647a-1-3. > > > And there is no strict requirement to look it up in JOSE: it is possible > (albeit questionable) to parse the algorithm name to extract the HPKE > algorithm identifiers and then use those. > > > > > -Ilari > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
