Subject: [COSE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-02-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 03:49:21 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cose-02-00: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not familiar with COSE, but, is "attributes for COSE" a well-understood
terminology ?

If not mistaken, "i.e." must be followed by a comma (but, hey, English is not
my native language, so, can be wrong).

In "The WG currently has two deliverables", suggest replace "deliverables" by
"work items".

The amount of descriptions/restrictions for the CBOR encoding for a certificate
compared to nearly no descriptions/restrictions for the other "deliverable" is
really surprising. Is there a COSE WG consensus on this second deliverable ?

Suggest to move the § starting with "The working group will coordinate its
progress " at the end of the charter as it is often the case.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:53:34 -0700

Hi Éric,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/

Yes, this is a pretty core COSE concept -- as discussed in
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct, COSE message headers include both a
'protected' list of attributes and an 'unprotected' list of attributes, and
those are the attributes in question.

> In "The WG currently has two deliverables", suggest replace "deliverables" by

I took these suggestions, thanks.

> really surprising. Is there a COSE WG consensus on this second deliverable ?

This is pretty similar to Lars' point, and we had a lot of participation in
the discussion that got us to consensus for this deliverable.  There's a
lot of interest in this space and we wanted to be clear about what we are
(are are not, at least yet) taking on.

> progress " at the end of the charter as it is often the case.

I left this alone for now, as it seems to flow better to me as-is.  But
feel free to repeat the remark when it comes back to us and I will think
about it again...

Thanks,

Ben