This works for me. spt > On May 27, 2025, at 12:19, Kampanakis, Panos <kpanos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> 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
