Hi @konsumer thank you for the suggestion. In order to accept code contributions we require a signed contributor agreement including legal review. Typically we only do this for larger contributions. Can you tell us more about your interest in wolfCOSE and your project? Are you planning any further PR's? If not we'll likely treat this as a feature request and implement ourselves. If you'd like to keep the response confidential or still want to pursue getting an agreement setup please email support at wolfssl dot com.
Thanks, David Garske, wolfSSL

Hi @dgarske . I am happy to sign a contributor agreement, but it's also a very small change. I am into COSE, in general, as more standards-based & quantum-age analog to reticulum and LXMF. Essentially, it's a messaging/routing protocol, where the address is the hash of the pubkey. It can work over lots of transports, and route messages between them, but a popular use-case is P2P chat, over lora & the internet, and the overall goal is small end-to-end encrypted messages. I love reticulum, and have made several client libraries for it, but they can be a bit of a challenge to ensure a solid implementation, since the encryption is a bit custom & tricky, and it's not quantum-safe. I'd rather follow larger set of standards like COSE, but build something similar. My final goal is small/cheap client devices made with microcontrollers, that interop with web & desktop programs.

I started work here on a desktop/platformio client-library, and although platformio handles everything dep-wise, for my microcontroller usecase, it might be easier to use system-wide (pkg-config) install for some users, especially if it's used for desktop compile. On my own program, I actually just ended up using cmake and FetchContent to track the dep, since it makes it simpler to compile the desktop examples, overall, so I am not actually using pkg-config, anymore.

Are you planning any further PR's? If not we'll likely treat this as a feature request and implement ourselves.

I am not sure. I often PR to anything I use, but I think wolfSSL/wolfCOSE mostly fits my needs, currently. No problem with it being an internal-implemented feature-request. I just did it on my own fork, and thought it would be nice to send it back, if there is interest, but either way is totally fine with me.

If you'd like to keep the response confidential or still want to pursue getting an agreement setup

For me, it's not so formal, like it's just a hobby project, but also I am happy to sign an agreement or whatever, if it's needed.

Hi @konsumer, thanks for the detailed context, the cosechat project sounds really cool. The Reticulum/LXMF inspiration with a standards-based, quantum-safe direction is exactly the kind of use case wolfCOSE is built for and it's great to hear the library already fits your needs.

Since this is a small change and you're not planning further PRs, we'll treat it as a feature request and implement pkg-config support ourselves so we can skip the contributor agreement overhead. No action needed on your end. We'll reference this PR when we put up the fix.

Don't hesitate to open issues or feature requests as your microcontroller work progresses. We would be happy to help.

Thanks,
Aidan