Furthermore, if you intend to keep JOSE in then please update the JOSE examples appendix section with actual working vectors. The existing "example" leaves a lot to be desired.
S pozdravem, *Filip Skokan* On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 at 14:40, Filip Skokan <[email protected]> wrote: > Since this draft registers JOSE algorithms and defines JWK representations > it would be prudent to send its WGLC notice there as well. cc @JOSE WG > <[email protected]> > > I appreciate the algorithm set is kept at a minimum. But I still don't see > these as general purpose algorithms that we necessarily "*need"* to have > in JOSE (unlike ML-DSA/FN-DSA). I'll bite tho and say that it doesn't hurt > to have them registered as backup given the novelty and some small > uncertainty surrounding the other PQC algs in general. > > That being said I would welcome it if the draft did mention something > along those lines, these algorithms are either targeting a niche purpose or > serve as backup, the former is more likely. General purpose JOSE libraries > shouldn't bother implementing these. I for one certainly won't, being > mindful of the library footprint. Also none of the Web Cryptography API > implementers currently plan to support them despite being included in the > API's Modern Algorithms <https://wicg.github.io/webcrypto-modern-algos/> > extension. > > Speaking of which, the Web Cryptography extension will register all > remaining SLH-DSA parameter sets in JOSE IANA for JWK representation > purposes only (Algorithm Usage Location(s): "JWK"). It currently lists the > ones from this draft too but that's merely because at some point it was > uncertain whether this is going to move forward or not. I will update the > extension proposal accordingly depending on what gets published in this > draft. > > S pozdravem, > *Filip Skokan* > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 18:58, Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylopetrov= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear COSE WG members, >> >> As discussed during IETF 125, this message starts a WG Last Call (WGLC) >> for: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus/ >> >> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceeding with >> the >> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping >> [email protected] >> in copy. Please provide rationale for support and explanations or >> suggestions >> for objections. >> >> This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-04-14 >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> -- Mike and >> Ivo >> >> COSE co-chairs >> >> >> Please note: >> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual >> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1]. >> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the >> provisions >> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. >> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be >> found at [3]. >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ >> _______________________________________________ >> COSE mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
