[adding the JOSE list as it seems relevant] On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 2:40 PM Brian Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 2:07 AM Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> the JOSE and COSE chairs have issued a working group last call on the two >> HPKE drafts. Most of the content has been aligned, as far as the structural >> differences between COSE and JOSE allow. >> >> However, there are some noteworthy differences between the two drafts: >> >> - The COSE-HPKE draft introduces a new CBOR structure called >> Recipient_structure, which is passed into the Additional Authenticated Data >> (AAD) field of the HPKE invocation. This structure contains the protected >> headers from the COSE_recipient (if present) as well as fixed fields, such >> as the algorithm used in the next layer. >> >> - The JOSE-HPKE draft does not define an equivalent structure. It >> basically leaves it up to a profile of the draft (or to the developer) to >> define the inforrmation it wants to incorporate. >> >> Both drafts support the inclusion of mutually known private information >> via the info field in HPKE. Additionally, each draft offers different >> extension points for passing additional data into the AAD and info fields. >> > > As mentioned in the PR on the JOSE-HPKE > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-jose/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/pull/41> > draft, I don't think the way "mutually known private information" is used > is accurate or helpful to consumers of the document. I suspect that > similarly applies for the COSE-HPKE draft. > It looks like it did also apply to the COSE-HPKE draft and the problematic text has been removed in the recently published -16 revision https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-hpke-16 while it is still in JOSE-HPKE. I would suggest that this is an area (not having inaccurate/unhelpful content) where alignment would be beneficial. >> I believe further alignment between the two documents would be beneficial. >> > > Does sending this only to the COSE list imply that you think alignment > should come in the form of COSE moving towards JOSE? Or am I reading too > much into that? > Perhaps that read too much like a rhetorical question and it was foolish of me to expect a response. Rather than a question, this time I'll make the statement that alignment just for the sake of alignment shouldn't be a goal. For better or worse, JOSE and COSE diverged long ago. These drafts are not the place to try to fix that nor could they. -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
