Subject: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:27:06 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cose-01-00: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Spencer that this probably needs external review. (I don't see a
"can this be approved without external review" question in the ballot, so I
assume that's the intent, anyway.)

Otherwise, I have several mostly editorial comments:

The paragraphs starting with "The SUIT working group..." seem out of place.
These are motivations for work, but they occur after the discussion of work
structure has already started. I propose moving them earlier in the charter.

"1. Should the document be split in two?  One document for the
structures and one document for the algorithm definitions."

The second sentence is a fragment.

"The first set of
three are listed in the deliverables."

There are 5 in the deliverables.

"A re-charter will be required
to expand this list."

Isn't that always true?

"At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509
certificates was not a feature"

s/was/were

"The need to be able to
identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be
provided."

That seems awkward. I propose "The ability to identify X.509 certificates now
needs to be provided." Also, is this just a matter of identifying them, or do
they need to be imbedded/included?

---

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:19:04 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: COSE <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 7:27 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00:
(with
> COMMENT)
email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> "1. Should the document be split in two?  One document for the structures
and
> one document for the algorithm definitions."
> 

That is my writing style -- I seem to love fragments.

1.  Should the current document be split in two?  The first document would
contain the definitions of the structures and rules for processing them.
The second document would contain the set of original algorithms that were
defined.

> "A re-charter will be required

No I don't think that this is true.  If the SUIT WG came up with a new
algorithm that was approved by CFRG, then according to the goals set forward

The working group will coordinate its progress with the ACE, SUIT and
CORE working groups to ensure that we are fulfilling the needs of
these constituencies to the extent relevant to their work.

Then I believe that we could add this new algorithm document as a
deliverable without having to do a re-charter.  This text exists mostly to
make sure that I don't have to field questions about - Can we re-write X.509
certificates to be in CBOR (perhaps in a more limited form).

> 
> "At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates
was
> not a feature"
> 
> s/was/were
> 
> "The need to be able to
> identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be provided."
> 
> needs to be provided." Also, is this just a matter of identifying them, or
do they
> need to be imbedded/included?

Both identification and inclusion are required.  In some circumstances you
want to feed the certificate in and not make the recipient do a query to a
third party to retrieve it.

Jim

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose