Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-msg-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:28:11 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : CBOR Encoded Message Syntax
        Author          : Jim Schaad
	Filename        : draft-ietf-cose-msg-09.txt
	Pages           : 99
	Date            : 2015-12-16

Abstract:
   Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is data format designed
   for small code size and small message size.  There is a need for the
   ability to have the basic security services defined for this data
   format.  This document specifies procesing for signatures, message
   authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR.  This document also
   specifies a represention for cryptographic keys using CBOR.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-msg/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-msg-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-msg-09

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:48:33 -0800

This draft has a great many changes - including some that complicate the
document and make it longer.

It now supports the versions of MAC and Sign that people kept asking for.
It is not clear that the excess complexity is worth the effort, but that is
personal opinion that is not generally shared.

Almost all of the issues in the tracker have been addressed which are not
targeted at the WGLC version of the document.  The main ones left are:

* Clarifications of the registration process around first-come, first-served
and/or Expert review and if they are incompatible.   Mail to Hannes has
already been sent asking for clarifications of his opinion - but others
please chime in on that conversation.

* Restoration of the 'use' parameter - I sent mail on 11/6 in part on this
issue (subject deals with key_ops) where I had a proposal that would allow
key_ops to devolve be basically the same as use in size.  I do not like the
idea of two ways of doing the same thing.  It does not appear to have been
responded to.

* I need to look at the last mail from the OSCoAP people and deal with what
issues it raises.

I am hopeful that we can look at doing a WGLC by the middle of January.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: COSE [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of internet-
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-msg-09.txt
> 
> 
>  This draft is a work item of the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
Working
> Group of the IETF.
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose