>> On section 5, it might be worth reiterating why the key usage bits >> need to be set the way they are. > I have a hard time writing this tersely—does anyone in the WG have a reference handy? How about https://github.com/lamps-wg/dilithium-certificates/pull/147 ? -----Original Message----- From: Bas Westerbaan <bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 8:32 AM To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: secdir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; spasm@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-11 ietf last call Secdir review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > On section 5, it might be worth reiterating why the key usage bits > need to be set the way they are. I have a hard time writing this tersely—does anyone in the WG have a reference handy? > Section 8 ignores the ecosystem impacts as private keys propagate > across systems. It might be worth giving some guidance, to avoid unfortunate results. I'm not quite following your objection: could you elaborate. Best, Bas > > Sincerely, > Watson Ladd > > -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
