IETF 105 Agenda (Montreal) 2019-07-26 @ 12:20 EDT Van Horne Room
Chairs: * Ivaylo Petrov * Matthew A. Miller
Jabber Relay: Francesca Palombini Minutes: Michael Richardson
Almost everyone does signing, and almost nobody does encryption.
Hannes: Which implementation have post? Jim: I have no post any, any has been adopted Ivo: Do you want to use the wiki? Jim: Both project and IETF wiki are ok, I was planning to use the project one. Jim: Everyone can verify encryption and signatures from my implementations as they are using the examples from the repository. I need to verify the opposite direction.
Matt: this document has a good structure and is fine for me
Jim: One interesting question to consider is: do you want it for standard track or informational? Justin Richer: As you can not use COSE with the scenarios, perhaps it does not matter if it is one or the other, do not split the documents Matt: any particular concern about informational or standard track? Ben: harder to go standard once it's informational. gut feeling - keep standard track Mcr: don't see why you wouldn't (standard track) IPsecME has https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8247/ as standards track.
Send WGLC for both rfc8152bis-struct and rfc8152bis-algs
Push example to the repository
Carsten: What is the CBOR content type? Jim: that should be CoAP content-format
Carsten: We should make it a habit of registering a content type for such things when we stumble upon them.
ACTION?: Jim to add content type registration. ACTION?: Jim to see about early registration of the code points
Jim: for the 4 documents could you make a 4 weeks long WGLC Chairs: ok
ACTION: Chairs to send WGLC for both draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs and draft-ietf-cose-x509 after the LCs for the bis documents.
Register algorithms for the registration
Change curve identifier "P-256K" -> "secp256k1"
Time for WGLC?
ACTION: Chairs to send WGLC after the bis documents LCs.