Matthew, That is what I was thinking. Can you add a sentence in Section 5.2 to say that this is for the collection of SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 algorithms? Otherwise, the two sections of the document don't match. Thank you Linda Dunbar -----Original Message----- From: Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:55 PM To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx Cc: cose@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06 Hello Linda, Thanks for the review. Speaking on the author's behalf, SHA-2 is defined as the collection of hash algorithms, including all of those cited (SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512). Do you believe it is critical to call this out explicitly? - m&m Matthew A. Miller On 20/05/26 17:51, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Not Ready > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. > Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like > any other last call comments. > > This document is to list down the COSE&JOSE Algorithms to be > registered to IANA. But it seems the description is not complete. In > the Section 2: among the > 4 algorithms listed under RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5, three are NOT > recommended, one is deprecated. Under the Security Consideration > (Section 5), Section 5.2 describes why SHA-2 is "Not Recommended", > Section 5.3 describes why SHA-1 is "Deprecated". What about the > description on why SHA-512, SHA-384, and SHA-256 are not recommended? Is the missing description intended? > > Best Regards, > > Linda Dunbar > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
