From nobody Fri Oct 5 15:57:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3971412872C; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:57:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXlUVuQ1jvGz; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EBF91277D2; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w95MvFKx023069; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 00:57:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p54A6C3C7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.195.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42RlWb2wrXzDXqV; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 00:57:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 560473033.187742-8e755096de363303ad93055d3a5b5842 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 00:57:14 +0200 Message-Id: <17A2ED9E-8BDA-4686-A322-D952F36B1464@tzi.org> To: ace@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, t2trg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF103: DRAFT AGENDA X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 22:57:23 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA for IETF103. Remember that there is still quite some potential for changes. cbor/teep and 6tisch/suit are annoying but probably livable. No qirg for core goers... All times are ICT (Indochina Time) =3D=3D UTC +7 hours. There is no daylight saving time in effect in Thailand. DST will have ended in Europe by then (e.g., CET =3D UTC+0100) and will end in the US during the initial weekend (On Sun, Nov 4; e.g. EST =3D UTC-0500). (You can get pure UTC times on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Please note that the Friday schedule is still evolving; plan to stick around until 13:20 or you may miss interesting conversations. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten SATURDAY/SUNDAY, November 3/4. 2018 -- Hackathon (including various interops) (Centre Ville) -- Sun 1700-1900 Welcome Reception - Garden at Queen's Park -- Sun 1800-2000 Hot RFC Lightning Talks - Thai Chitlada 3 MONDAY, November 5, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Thai Chitlada 3 IRTF*** dinrg Decentralized Internet Infrastructure = Proposed RG Meeting 1 OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Boromph. 1/2 RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG Thai Chitlada 1 SEC secdispatch Security Dispatch WG Thai Chitlada 2 TSV taps Transport Services WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Thai Chitlada 1 IRTF cfrg Crypto Forum Thai Chitlada 2 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Boromph. 1/2 ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Meeting 2 OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG Thai Chitlada 2 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Thai Chitlada 3 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Meeting 1 INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Thai Chitlada 1 IRTF irtfopen IRTF Open Meeting Thai Chitlada 2 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG TUESDAY, November 6, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Thai Chitlada 2 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Meeting 1 INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG Boromph. 1/2 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Thai Chitlada 3 INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG Meeting 2 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Thai Chitlada 3 INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Thai Chitlada 2 SEC rats Remote ATtestation ProcedureS BOF Thai Chitlada 1 TSV quic QUIC WG 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Thai Chitlada 1 IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Meeting 2 IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing WEDNESDAY, November 7, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session ! Thai Chitlada 3 ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG Boromph. 3 RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Meeting 1 SEC *** teep Trusted Execution Environment = Provisioning WG Boromph. 1/2 SEC tokbind Token Binding WG Thai Chitlada 1 TSV quic QUIC WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Boromph. 1/2 INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Thai Chitlada 1 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Thai Chitlada 2 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1350-1520 Afternoon Session I Meeting 1 GEN wugh WGs Using GitHub BOF Thai Chitlada 3 INT homenet Home Networking WG Meeting 2 IRTF panrg Path Aware Networking RG 1540-1710 Afternoon Session II Meeting 1 ART dispatch Dispatch WG - Joint with ARTAREA Thai Chitlada 3 INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Meeting 2 IRTF pearg Privacy Enhancements and Assessments = Proposed Research Group Boromph. 3 RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG Boromph. 1/2 RTG rift Routing In Fat Trees WG THURSDAY, November 8, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Thai Chitlada 1 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Boromph. 4 INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Meeting 1 IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Thai Chitlada 2 SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Thai Chitlada 2 ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Thai Chitlada 3 IRTF qirg Quantum Internet Proposed Research Group Boromph. 4 RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Thai Chitlada 1 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG Meeting 2 TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Meeting 1 INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Thai Chitlada 2 RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Thai Chitlada 1 SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Thai Chitlada 3 RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Thai Chitlada 1 SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Boromph. 1/2 SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG FRIDAY, November 9, 2018 Various ad-hoc meetings, please see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/103sidemeetings#FRIDAY -- 0900..1320 T2TRG work meeting -- 1000..??? COIN (Computing in the Network) From nobody Tue Oct 9 19:58:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B58130E4A; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:58:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Spencer Dawkins To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.86.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <153914028161.10664.10734177001553377284.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:58:01 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:58:02 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this is one of the recharters that is appropriate for external review before approval. Thanks for that. I see "resistant to quantum computing" a lot these days, but is this actually "resistant to attacks based on quantum-computing capabilities", or something like that? I mean, quantum computers do have other uses, I hope :-) This text "At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates was not a feature that needed to be transferred from the JOSE key document (RFC 7517). Since that time a better sense of how certificates would be used both in the IoT sphere and with COSE outside of the IoT sphere has been developed. The need to be able to identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be provided. This will additionally require definition of a small number of hash functions for compact references to certificates." alternates between "X.509 certificates" (twice) and "certificates" with no adjective (twice). If there's no difference intended, it may be useful to be consistent. From nobody Tue Oct 9 20:27:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7A9130E58; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 20:27:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dh3-8HzzRvI7; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 20:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41AA7130E17; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 20:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (50.248.212.131) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 20:22:55 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Spencer Dawkins' , 'The IESG' CC: , References: <153914028161.10664.10734177001553377284.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <153914028161.10664.10734177001553377284.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 20:27:28 -0700 Message-ID: <000d01d46049$2e611360$8b233a20$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIBG015TMR2HcrSHCzlb9jkpZxRs6S+Wvww Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [50.248.212.131] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 03:27:45 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 7:58 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org; cose@ietf.org > Subject: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: > (with COMMENT) > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think this is one of the recharters that is appropriate for external review > before approval. Thanks for that. > > I see "resistant to quantum computing" a lot these days, but is this actually > "resistant to attacks based on quantum-computing capabilities", or something > like that? I mean, quantum computers do have other uses, I hope :-) Yes it is "resistant to attacks..." Well - the big use of quantum computers that I have seen mostly boil down to - how do we solve this problem which are hard and therefore could be used for cryptography, but yes there are other thing like traveling salesmen that are supposed to be solvable. > > This text > > "At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates was > not a feature that needed to be transferred from the JOSE key document (RFC > 7517). Since that time a better sense of how certificates would be used both in > the IoT sphere and with COSE outside of the IoT sphere has been developed. > The need to be able to identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to > be provided. This will additionally require definition of a small number of hash > functions for compact references to certificates." > > alternates between "X.509 certificates" (twice) and "certificates" with no > adjective (twice). If there's no difference intended, it may be useful to be > consistent. The text should probably use X.509 certificates consistently. There are other certificate formats and I have already been approached by somebody who wants to do a COSE certificate of some type (definitely not in scope of the current charter). Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Wed Oct 10 10:57:30 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30644130F58; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alissa Cooper To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.86.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:57:21 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:57:22 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- s/full standard/proposed standard/ It would be helpful if the list of deliverables were to indicate the intended status of the documents. From nobody Wed Oct 10 11:19:20 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E33130FC8; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:19:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.88 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27-5bmt3CxF4; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8D3E130FEB; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9AIJ0wC063092 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:19:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local To: Alissa Cooper , The IESG Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org References: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:18:54 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:19:12 -0000 On 10/10/18 12:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > s/full standard/proposed standard/ I think RFC 8152 is a Proposed Standard already. My reading is that the intention of this work item is to move it to Internet Standard. /a From nobody Wed Oct 10 11:35:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38FC126BED for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFToAaLK7NPu for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-x341.google.com (mail-ot1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::341]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55D3D127598 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x341.google.com with SMTP id c23so4580985otl.9 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:35:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:autocrypt:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=VbI6uzoBN6i7HL1LTTGLx/bUZlNtZTbaoA91w51rqKA=; b=XG13vEBxZfYJg9VG+bIDZ5Lu77nr20DDXnabmD8RXJGZzJUFiBw4FZMQkg105HYVYe vxNZZCQMD9SMRgKa5u2xv6q7bVuk6Y8U2Pkek+zW218qdpLZGc4xP8voyhaI0BE8L5El VLTE0sQno7LLT26l9M8+MDZ3TbQRk3B8WCRbH4nny9dkTq9U0OAhyjOFkpxY2yWIZO9n V2NCFcaJIun3V/51k5deEESaBNpcEu560pNibU9KjOPkPjaEjNPKa3OFfUdwHPAcFTc5 dDtXmFGaO0MW3HlvIZNF9bD6a1A4BVvfKUECA23S5OA8wYQkXZ5xpGP3loVh8w9oVElq bS4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp :autocrypt:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=VbI6uzoBN6i7HL1LTTGLx/bUZlNtZTbaoA91w51rqKA=; b=czaShMaWETEGhX+wa8W5yXeW5ONSmO1GFpKpsYVB6COyo0V9uxPqay3gRqC31iaoDe HMUv5zXTvf0fHpp5N+1Zz8ag5LqSGyJ1MBZQ0wEVkw/gRV+kUkSryke8A8/jRabwBjZy Zf7HvwVARCdANoIpX8wlOoCSacQOjbIqumoSoIxGyzrvS0xYwR1RxlYm09Pye7Vkef+u XbG3V+Npoum4BrcJcXdFPzg1W3LaF3UnVVqEKJK7nurpFR7R0kalFWh0AnkFYba4e5k1 JwL5N50CSJXZJSFkUlNI2xMDHdm0GlERhgJIJpyRKkj9QpoJ0/0JFeVGgkXRlGLk9v4q Riew== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj02FmnPmQoWGC6Vy8s3K586hRkV/Swl8gjSAg33lYmSVYaudOg RGgKpzGln85z6x+tFZ76etgD5W7nPtQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61IA+EHrSHFBQd+Tna4krQiVJrzQE00wjN11lvfMVtbv3c0DdlbT5fevoeIRRSKU02rCVL73g== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:a0e:: with SMTP id 14mr21769163otg.226.1539196540277; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.6.21.160] ([128.177.113.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q21sm7060866otd.58.2018.10.10.11.35.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Matthew Miller To: Adam Roach , Alissa Cooper , The IESG Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org References: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> From: "Matthew A. Miller" Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFJoAooBCADQmEtpbpY/4wTeKgZIuyG7HkxIFgiUeqOvtiBKj/pCA73d7Q5hCvQdGcKJ 6uZsYz3Il9oKoKFxVt90iEXspbE39g6ek19e6RsB4j0Q10l4QvH+EqeD760gs0H2yf/eYj9i uk9/VY6axdQlPsmid1zoQgCNjSM7X4/K26WGMs03sbXJpKdoonelzIlJSNfzi0q546iplo72 D2cCm9BriMkQvcGnsm4B9eBIBn3GKmVx1tsmPNeNTyun2DvaLnrYxbA0Ivo1DzZReds9NZ25 uROI/+b+lcg9/kmHzhK+q8NMQCFWmqpS/lZRKxVBSijKGpGr5h8VLVf5iURHtwG+B/QxABEB AAHNLk1hdHRoZXcgQS4gTWlsbGVyIDxsaW51eHdvbGZAb3V0ZXItcGxhbmVzLm5ldD7CwIAE EwEKACoCGwMFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AFCQvHJDEFAlirCeQCGQEACgkQ7PRy ThCeBbt+sAgAzUQokr+f+ArieIrv2JkiQLqiBaZX29Aph9YwG3OPLWSdESEKkFOSJT0LWbsC cAKHLrVfgl2+6iPhf4OOacTdqK7wS6vruPZC1ChdO7NZTgbVa0hP/Q/QKEoaMGNdfc1/lgxY 5kwh+bvGIF1+HyadytgCBBHxdVEhYI7G3ejKqA8iVwri1VW0Wjp8iWdjpF74swIHhid5GcAu 6VJgVNJw3P+WkTkNrkd2tx5yUfNXQuGyFhxwlpiuaOpIk3p74P6e8h/riMpkJ5mIH/ryGTH7 qxpEIuep2bLQZmGwBen8kf3MO/VbiA/NMY6OHdc93EBKr0g7n2BA5uFLdy79FqAA3M7ATQRS aAKKAQgAwP67h8GJUO6XYyWOrcJGXDJnnZEDS+q+bTQXkJMFa74rVIx0yioqY8QdpBJFGaMT 4DCNYe/3pw61ZTDDKqukSCfOh/ssdd8zSGTQZSX5lR4B4+00/LKWugP6iHHHYiETbBVb5bxc aR/LE41Wx3z2HsW3TkeZB6WVk82MTclS1zCuY3p9AeCvr424BSQL7KC38y2eQc95G+nabsVD c6oQ8oZOf1D2giBb2VgbYkSppKj8BKvBtmjCauWeEq/AkZKaDAdua8Qj0vEfgcoh8aavlPJi rqj1YNSyc3AO4R5prPGgTepcUpW8ip8xIPAFoJXfuvsZSV7uVP36gwApU4+ZnwARAQABwsB8 BBgBCgAmAhsMFiEEMddYjeyQaQ1rzJjg7PRyThCeBbsFAlpvpIsFCQvLWoEACgkQ7PRyThCe BbuNHAf/cchJ7kHoIr5i+jgVRuR71AGlxlMbVolnS5tza3bi9Ie63LRdOtMUE3pDUQo25cWd cP7pzwwRBCDD2GxfIuyMCWaES0xtQdTIyNOAFFOtBtCFOrsNEk+iLAu6GBr4QzSQKW1QW4/b vcfpM2pLQn7Zd6naUioEYfTHCMmYHr7hQXaPNEQ7V/J4pLVAN8bHyVgQ9ciQN91DUs6jnueM BUW7DNvuHq0RDzA+ufYdpQAjwl4z1v+rnJ79P3HTxfFdiTTAk9MjyVQklHxS067cmLYkSOku dnCOHhDmSFwkKd9EwOBNuztpjCzmM5SgOT+U/iHH+IM/Hv6bjVCiAQ5WOihe6Q== Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:35:38 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7E3xPz0e1KizK1kohYOFIsjf8568ZoGUd" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:35:44 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --7E3xPz0e1KizK1kohYOFIsjf8568ZoGUd Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="kMwGBeFOzUPrWpVwiLmP6UaPbbCWQec5n"; protected-headers="v1" From: "Matthew A. Miller" To: Adam Roach , Alissa Cooper , The IESG Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) References: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> --kMwGBeFOzUPrWpVwiLmP6UaPbbCWQec5n Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 18/10/10 12:18, Adam Roach wrote: > On 10/10/18 12:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> s/full standard/proposed standard/ >=20 >=20 > I think RFC 8152 is a Proposed Standard already. My reading is that the= > intention of this work item is to move it to Internet Standard. >=20 Yes, the intention is to move COSE to Internet Standard. - m&m Matthew A. Miller --kMwGBeFOzUPrWpVwiLmP6UaPbbCWQec5n-- --7E3xPz0e1KizK1kohYOFIsjf8568ZoGUd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEMddYjeyQaQ1rzJjg7PRyThCeBbsFAlu+RnoACgkQ7PRyThCe Bbtcqgf9H2emdbh5jb63k0YEbWR9fLy/dNixIggzaR45wdFRjlp5XFkQHns5W5ov cQ2ayM1Mo0It7/DY9VufMDBGqZuu17tqG86nGGzgs9WcVRo58EyItMzBQQMC794u 8CXItG0Z8j49uNIpS5XP0uIWBKjH+R0Zc0nLlQQQXCfpXhvTAYcj5OSAuEGjFYeb OegtsSDytfE9uZGtx0yMDaaOKh2GdKNehaPCq8Ou7QMmMBLRBYddtoIaP9k6apyD +MjeIW9/FPVlJyHEKUWD2Q8aC9fNp7LueoPN6PVIIjc1XeYSXdpi1V+521cp9FzX NMf9OQwroKluN/iVSJyHMGLcEhKotw== =oHGv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7E3xPz0e1KizK1kohYOFIsjf8568ZoGUd-- From nobody Wed Oct 10 11:43:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B13126F72; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:43:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=BsugWoAW; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nF3EXCAo Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ut_snKBICjNa; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E3681274D0; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A643121FA7; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=H 4Xro8kDVgG+dMkOdGye3jNetbZlcu/Gnbbtujkr6iw=; b=BsugWoAW8CKGzHd0E TfbUbKN7VcRouw/hMIoi0L+0VV7ReMG8C0kFKMCs7l0s5ra2HGuPDu2jJ7pqosC9 JaPRaeCgZ/T6lE0NRnu3loGtZCRC6w0YCbpP3C777DLxyJCblM0GH+34Q9f+lNW5 LcEZMx5hL/a1qOs4AxIPCMCj8mL+zq+Frmr2iySsj6LscbeascAnwwGlx+p2aPdE uL+p/SS9gHwfNXyHf4PSHyVmHaxWZ2L/ODHOoDT+sJtowAgEqgQW7J4v3Ov+oL7l ocHOo00c14Y/UnnqVdZhL86oHjaNogvvja4bMJ2CeXRDXNqwGllT3QDZwG5nydBw N9eTQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=H4Xro8kDVgG+dMkOdGye3jNetbZlcu/Gnbbtujkr6 iw=; b=nF3EXCAo6/RCuwpiz6C40A2gRZ2W4u+T2e1Tsx8XQhzpCWuG7XJRzAv2X RzfoWfhj3+1FZaVpQ6b/v/h5CEaleaRhXsG9KHMAXeGmkW42weEh45H2SW5ewTKY UmaHjK4fDjVctS2w4AQz9MLviHMsi+KkK6R4LS+IJCIlqBgX91xqpxgG5HgAneyq OSzfsQkBmpWgsGWe8/oqLgm93uiTBucdRXAvJOOlIXBHiY330F1PbElc6yf7RWng jpU6I+liAJ/9uRf/6mnC7PyX9xu/ZT3nHare/HPzx8vgu6TjXUejchlCr9Dt7hsL ZPl2ZIkwtXW+/ypsh0V6ubefrw98w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (nccm-cmcs-client.cisco.com [173.38.117.70]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2E2FEE46BA; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:35 -0400 Cc: Adam Roach , IESG , cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8D073974-7E83-4BE8-868F-ABB733784AFF@cooperw.in> References: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> To: "Matthew A. Miller" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:43:41 -0000 > On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Matthew A. Miller = wrote: >=20 > On 18/10/10 12:18, Adam Roach wrote: >> On 10/10/18 12:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> s/full standard/proposed standard/ >>=20 >>=20 >> I think RFC 8152 is a Proposed Standard already. My reading is that = the >> intention of this work item is to move it to Internet Standard. >>=20 >=20 > Yes, the intention is to move COSE to Internet Standard. Sorry, I made the wrong assumption without checking. I would still = suggest s/full standard/Internet standard/ Alissa >=20 >=20 > - m&m >=20 > Matthew A. Miller >=20 From nobody Wed Oct 10 14:02:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F987128A6E; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Benjamin Kaduk To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.86.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <153920532741.5944.3164090154791360174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:07 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:02:07 -0000 Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- % Key management and binding of keys to identities are out of scope for % the working group. The COSE WG will not innovate in terms of % cryptography. The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to % those in RFCs or active IETF WG documents. should probably include RG documents, too. Are all the TPM-implemented algorithms in question going to meet this restriction? For the deliverable "5. Define a small set of hash functions" the text should be more clear about what constraints are placed on the design of these hash functions (the rest of the text would have me think that they are essentially for "certificate thumbprints" but that's just a guess). From nobody Wed Oct 10 19:27:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1800130DF2; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:27:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ben Campbell To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.86.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <153922482678.5791.14299535909398711328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:27:06 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:27:07 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Spencer that this probably needs external review. (I don't see a "can this be approved without external review" question in the ballot, so I assume that's the intent, anyway.) Otherwise, I have several mostly editorial comments: The paragraphs starting with "The SUIT working group..." seem out of place. These are motivations for work, but they occur after the discussion of work structure has already started. I propose moving them earlier in the charter. "1. Should the document be split in two? One document for the structures and one document for the algorithm definitions." The second sentence is a fragment. "The first set of three are listed in the deliverables." There are 5 in the deliverables. "A re-charter will be required to expand this list." Isn't that always true? "At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates was not a feature" s/was/were "The need to be able to identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be provided." That seems awkward. I propose "The ability to identify X.509 certificates now needs to be provided." Also, is this just a matter of identifying them, or do they need to be imbedded/included? From nobody Wed Oct 10 20:04:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD158130E01; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:04:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KqTcW6LELbW7; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477E9130DFE; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (192.168.1.162) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:59:14 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Alissa Cooper' , "'Matthew A. Miller'" CC: , 'Adam Roach' , 'IESG' , References: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> <8D073974-7E83-4BE8-868F-ABB733784AFF@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <8D073974-7E83-4BE8-868F-ABB733784AFF@cooperw.in> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:03:50 -0700 Message-ID: <001901d4610f$0b574760$2205d620$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQI4FSxwy78yN2VSugxDiSFUpAsoXgH7fnXRAXuGuZ4B1WdC56QnkCXQ Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.162] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 03:04:42 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:44 AM > To: Matthew A. Miller > Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org; Adam Roach ; IESG > ; cose@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: > (with COMMENT) > > > > > On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Matthew A. Miller planes.net> wrote: > > > > On 18/10/10 12:18, Adam Roach wrote: > >> On 10/10/18 12:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >>> s/full standard/proposed standard/ > >> > >> > >> I think RFC 8152 is a Proposed Standard already. My reading is that > >> the intention of this work item is to move it to Internet Standard. > >> > > > > Yes, the intention is to move COSE to Internet Standard. > > Sorry, I made the wrong assumption without checking. I would still suggest > s/full standard/Internet standard/ This seems reasonable to me. I am probably still stuck in the terminology for this from back in the 90s before the simplification. Jim > > Alissa > > > > > > > - m&m > > > > Matthew A. Miller > > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Wed Oct 10 20:12:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1AA130E01; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:12:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RKXGp-ZUCO7I; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08611130DFE; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (192.168.1.162) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:07:37 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' , 'The IESG' CC: , References: <153920532741.5944.3164090154791360174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <153920532741.5944.3164090154791360174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <001a01d46110$36e62350$a4b269f0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQGVmOtaKWC3+q8FX5aTBztOyHxmvqWW7F+A Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.162] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 03:12:23 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:02 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org; cose@ietf.org > Subject: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with > COMMENT) > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > % Key management and binding of keys to identities are out of scope for % the > working group. The COSE WG will not innovate in terms of % cryptography. > The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to % those in RFCs or active > IETF WG documents. > > should probably include RG documents, too. Are all the TPM-implemented > algorithms in question going to meet this restriction? I don't know if the FIDO algorithms are going to meet this bar. I do know that there is going to need to be some serious review on these algorithms by CFRG along with others to get this to progress very far. I would not be surprised if it did not end up as an RFC rather than just the current FIDO document as I find the current FIDO document difficult to read. I put this restriction in to avoid vanity algorithms from popping up but did not think hard enough about the FIDO algorithms. The specification of algorithm in COSE I limited to those published as RFCs, are active IETF WG documents or have had significant review by CFRG. > > For the deliverable "5. Define a small set of hash functions" the text should be > more clear about what constraints are placed on the design of these hash > functions (the rest of the text would have me think that they are essentially for > "certificate thumbprints" but that's just a guess). "small set" = 3. There is a reference both in the SUIT paragraph and in this paragraph about needing to define hash algorithms. This could be combined into a single paragraph if desired. Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Wed Oct 10 20:19:24 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16BF130E07; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:19:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HokUSjA9Mxt4; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F251130DFE; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (192.168.1.162) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:14:29 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Ben Campbell' , 'The IESG' CC: , References: <153922482678.5791.14299535909398711328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <153922482678.5791.14299535909398711328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:19:04 -0700 Message-ID: <001b01d46111$2c15c6f0$844154d0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHPSv8DiQainHk3flIyN2Gq/quQHaUjirkg Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.162] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 03:19:15 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of Ben Campbell > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 7:27 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org; cose@ietf.org > Subject: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with > COMMENT) > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with Spencer that this probably needs external review. (I don't see a > "can this be approved without external review" question in the ballot, so I > assume that's the intent, anyway.) > > Otherwise, I have several mostly editorial comments: > > The paragraphs starting with "The SUIT working group..." seem out of place. > These are motivations for work, but they occur after the discussion of work > structure has already started. I propose moving them earlier in the charter. > > "1. Should the document be split in two? One document for the structures and > one document for the algorithm definitions." > > The second sentence is a fragment. That is my writing style -- I seem to love fragments. 1. Should the current document be split in two? The first document would contain the definitions of the structures and rules for processing them. The second document would contain the set of original algorithms that were defined. > > "The first set of > three are listed in the deliverables." > > There are 5 in the deliverables. > > "A re-charter will be required > to expand this list." > > Isn't that always true? No I don't think that this is true. If the SUIT WG came up with a new algorithm that was approved by CFRG, then according to the goals set forward The working group will coordinate its progress with the ACE, SUIT and CORE working groups to ensure that we are fulfilling the needs of these constituencies to the extent relevant to their work. Then I believe that we could add this new algorithm document as a deliverable without having to do a re-charter. This text exists mostly to make sure that I don't have to field questions about - Can we re-write X.509 certificates to be in CBOR (perhaps in a more limited form). > > "At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates was > not a feature" > > s/was/were > > "The need to be able to > identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be provided." > > That seems awkward. I propose "The ability to identify X.509 certificates now > needs to be provided." Also, is this just a matter of identifying them, or do they > need to be imbedded/included? Both identification and inclusion are required. In some circumstances you want to feed the certificate in and not make the recipient do a query to a third party to retrieve it. Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Wed Oct 10 21:25:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57954130E18; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:25:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Suresh Krishnan To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.86.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <153923193731.5879.3250018290545781827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:25:37 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 04:25:37 -0000 Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess the text following "The standards progression work will focus on:" needs to include "the resolution of any Errata" (currently in the 8152 case open Erratum #5066 - maybe more might turn up) as per RFC6410 Also ANAMA should be ANIMA? "The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to those in RFCs or active IETF WG documents." Should this include IRTF RG documents as well since draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs is a CFRG document? From nobody Thu Oct 11 02:13:19 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C74130DCA; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:13:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qqhp_bCfwhMA; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-xc36.google.com (mail-yw1-xc36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15FE6130DC1; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-xc36.google.com with SMTP id y14-v6so3310282ywa.4; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:13:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qmgrd5Yn/y1kTlf6g85hdrLPAhwmKK1cxVVKGxdhVXA=; b=Ditp9UY/A8THAiEmyHNunChci2cGlbkn8AzRCo1Wz3otUhm/oMb4d5zcgC5SbI3cei S6ejxD0D4Ofg/Ble9YDkF3IHYTzqYid9HFNiYhvNSW+jgdWTAJBW1WasJd8+m0pN8CQ2 pNA66WOdNQ+y5OVBpxx3fc1Mx1JDCcJmgGAq0MYSJcN19TOGvZRYq+IgCZwcNVbW4n7W Hc+xEgCRLrvFhLpLB7rZiENekbCmXrmkuYxys8YtrRwTHg64HD5+exQ4w8LjAJo6saQG 8eOnzljKfRsziYL9Ys/zJaN/T54zz9vwkGiGzgZK7MRWBCXpxD/WZ9XW6uxCOxuy19ZW 8yaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qmgrd5Yn/y1kTlf6g85hdrLPAhwmKK1cxVVKGxdhVXA=; b=K0kM7P1F2JWcUi8IYQS+McGhupMTrCZl7uLOsdnQF3OO1nVZX34LsSiJPAMWOlf3QY k2EIJnSpkYmtMLDPcpGtHzsiG70rfCJN52T0xryhtUPMel0doZMNaHIZ6HP24dCiYqqf T2wUMAf5MDIXCFBF8kUH2ur/q71vzSG1QiHyoF6nRwSCoeHO2E11a5wE42e6VQe1DlfE OvHFrT7UEOkdlSzQgK2M6uUmFfr8XTV7zHMDUA17YkQeOwGwP/s+LYYByQtckvHI5IZV bUUHv7CwTE4xBygdOtMQHx/t1OxHdUECRSlvo63mwuv2daPqlRHH51wgGCKwyMVt3fiC Lobg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoh4pQ0XN+Jtmh1dOYTh1WeNbofQNCpXApArFa5oIaGfzVowHR65 8yHE7vYU1orcnDEvLWI0NAMPfqx0+D26tzifp9EeyL7p X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61GmB97aIUmERF7c50cEg2ylaJ3wWKvXwF5oOlGybKxD4BK/p+pzDmQRQ3ucAvgsxlx1BBVCOQqPSiD6o4sO/s= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:dc43:: with SMTP id f64-v6mr328936ywe.411.1539249193167; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:13:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <153919424119.5836.2866540364535556559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06c12ecf-0d02-e5fe-8dbf-86fd812525bc@nostrum.com> <8D073974-7E83-4BE8-868F-ABB733784AFF@cooperw.in> <001901d4610f$0b574760$2205d620$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: <001901d4610f$0b574760$2205d620$@augustcellars.com> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 04:13:00 -0500 Message-ID: To: Jim Schaad Cc: Alissa Cooper , Matthew Miller , cose-chairs@ietf.org, Adam Roach , IESG , cose@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000612f380577f061ec" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:13:17 -0000 --000000000000612f380577f061ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Jim, On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:04 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: COSE On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:44 AM > > To: Matthew A. Miller > > Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org; Adam Roach ; IESG > > ; cose@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on > charter-ietf-cose-01-00: > > (with COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Matthew A. Miller > planes.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 18/10/10 12:18, Adam Roach wrote: > > >> On 10/10/18 12:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > >>> s/full standard/proposed standard/ > > >> > > >> > > >> I think RFC 8152 is a Proposed Standard already. My reading is that > > >> the intention of this work item is to move it to Internet Standard. > > >> > > > > > > Yes, the intention is to move COSE to Internet Standard. > > > > Sorry, I made the wrong assumption without checking. I would still > suggest > > s/full standard/Internet standard/ > > This seems reasonable to me. I am probably still stuck in the terminology > for this from back in the 90s before the simplification. Oh, it's not THAT bad! This happened in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410, dated 2011. Version -00 of the underlying individual draft is dated 2010. So you and I bravely enter the 2010 decade together. In IETF terms, that's recent enough for me to remember that the name changed, but I still have to check to verify which direction it changed ;-) Spencer --000000000000612f380577f061ec Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Jim,=C2=A0

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:04 PM Jim Schaad <<= a href=3D"mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com">ietf@augustcellars.com> wro= te:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:44 AM
> To: Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>
> Cc: cose-cha= irs@ietf.org; Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; IESG
> <iesg@ietf.org>; cose@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [COSE] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
charter-ietf-cose-01-00:
> (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf= @outer-
> pla= nes.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/10/10 12:18, Adam Roach wrote:
> >> On 10/10/18 12:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >>> s/full standard/proposed standard/
> >>
> >>
> >> I think RFC 8152 is a Proposed Standard already. My reading i= s that
> >> the intention of this work item is to move it to Internet Sta= ndard.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, the intention is to move COSE to Internet Standard.
>
> Sorry, I made the wrong assumption without checking. I would still sug= gest
> s/full standard/Internet standard/

This seems reasonable to me.=C2=A0 I am probably still stuck in the termino= logy
for this from back in the 90s before the simplification.
<= br>
Oh, it's not THAT bad! This happened in=C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410= , dated 2011. Version -00 of the underlying individual draft is dated 2010.= =C2=A0

So you and I bravely enter the 2010 decade = together.

In IETF terms, that's recent enough = for me to remember that the name changed, but I still have to check to veri= fy which direction it changed ;-)=C2=A0

Spencer
--000000000000612f380577f061ec-- From nobody Thu Oct 11 14:22:45 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1F8127598; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4hesN_p05qRy; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu [18.7.68.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B62127B92; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:22:40 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 12074423-cf9ff70000003ddd-6a-5bbfbf1d6a3c Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id EA.EB.15837.E1FBFBB5; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w9BLMZj4005842; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:22:36 -0400 Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w9BLMUH2004138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:22:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:22:30 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Jim Schaad Cc: "'The IESG'" , cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <20181011212230.GZ3293@kduck.kaduk.org> References: <153920532741.5944.3164090154791360174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <001a01d46110$36e62350$a4b269f0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001a01d46110$36e62350$a4b269f0$@augustcellars.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hRV1pXbvz/a4P1UFYt3W/cxWkzbOpXV YsaficwWq6d/Z3Ng8dg4Zzqbx5IlP5kCmKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Ms5emMtScEO84tjsc2wN jLeEuhg5OSQETCS2Nmxh6WLk4hASWMwkcevUNihnI6PE5zurmUGqhASuMkncORULYrMIqEq0 TH3CCmKzCahINHRfBqsREVCX2Lr6JhOIzSzgKvHo5Bl2EFtYIFRi05EjYDW8AsYS15qvMUIs aGKUOLXnKxtEQlDi5MwnLBDNWhI3/r0EGsQBZEtLLP/HARLmFHCQOHJxAth8UQFlib19h9gn MArMQtI9C0n3LITuBYzMqxhlU3KrdHMTM3OKU5N1i5MT8/JSi3TN9HIzS/RSU0o3MYJCl91F eQfjyz7vQ4wCHIxKPLw/Ju6PFmJNLCuuzD3EKMnBpCTK27YXKMSXlJ9SmZFYnBFfVJqTWnyI UYKDWUmEV3/Gvmgh3pTEyqrUonyYlDQHi5I478SWxdFCAumJJanZqakFqUUwWRkODiUJ3jkg QwWLUtNTK9Iyc0oQ0kwcnCDDeYCGzwap4S0uSMwtzkyHyJ9iNOZoe3p9BjNHB4gUYsnLz0uV EuedC1IqAFKaUZoHNw2UfiSy99e8YhQHek6Y9zVIFQ8wdcHNewW0iglo1amQPSCrShIRUlIN jNGtjhMLs9m6FSJ3iu29/nLWmnn90XGPZli+/1ugb1R7/Xmr2sppp05H1j+JzdRd/eTejy9m lxhlcp/5nv/3cq3WybUuT8USHyicy/XVfFF9Tsnl2YtVKzq/rGDfHfVWhLH2nIbrr5tsW34K 9dxUej3RqbzpbsXNa2/+5jL8W9Tc7bD2QfYl2UVKLMUZiYZazEXFiQBhjy52GgMAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 21:22:43 -0000 On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:12:13PM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: COSE On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:02 PM > > To: The IESG > > Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org; cose@ietf.org > > Subject: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with > > COMMENT) > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Yes > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email > > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory > > paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > % Key management and binding of keys to identities are out of scope for % > the > > working group. The COSE WG will not innovate in terms of % cryptography. > > The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to % those in RFCs or > active > > IETF WG documents. > > > > should probably include RG documents, too. Are all the TPM-implemented > > algorithms in question going to meet this restriction? > > I don't know if the FIDO algorithms are going to meet this bar. I do know > that there is going to need to be some serious review on these algorithms by > CFRG along with others to get this to progress very far. I would not be > surprised if it did not end up as an RFC rather than just the current FIDO > document as I find the current FIDO document difficult to read. > > I put this restriction in to avoid vanity algorithms from popping up but did > not think hard enough about the FIDO algorithms. > > The specification of algorithm in COSE I limited to those published as RFCs, > are active IETF WG documents or have had significant review by CFRG. That works, thanks. > > > > > For the deliverable "5. Define a small set of hash functions" the text > should be > > more clear about what constraints are placed on the design of these hash > > functions (the rest of the text would have me think that they are > essentially for > > "certificate thumbprints" but that's just a guess). > > "small set" = 3. > > There is a reference both in the SUIT paragraph and in this paragraph about > needing to define hash algorithms. This could be combined into a single > paragraph if desired. I was just trying to point out that this deliverable is basically saying "there should exist some hash functions", without stating or referring to any text that says "these hash functions are for compact references to certificates". But it's not like this was a blocking comment, so, as Spencer says, "do the right thing". -Benjamin From nobody Mon Oct 15 09:35:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E61F130EC2; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:35:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: cose@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <153962134544.18806.15601238571435423755.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:35:45 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] WG Review: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (cose) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 16:35:46 -0000 A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Security Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by 2018-10-25. CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (cose) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Current status: Proposed WG Chairs: Justin Richer Kepeng Li Assigned Area Director: Eric Rescorla Security Area Directors: Eric Rescorla Benjamin Kaduk Mailing list: Address: cose@ietf.org To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cose/ Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/cose/ Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE, RFC 8152) describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) for serialization. COSE additionally describes a representation for cryptographic keys. COSE has been picked up and is being used both by a number of groups within the IETF (i.e. ACE, CORE, ANAMA, 6TiSCH and SUIT) as well as outside of the IETF (i.e. W3C and FIDO). There are a number of implementations, both open source and private, now in existence. The specification is now sufficiently mature that it makes sense to try and advance it to STD status. The standards progression work will focus on: 1. Should the document be split in two? One document for the structures and one document for the algorithm definitions. 2. What areas in the document need clarification before the document can be progressed? 3. What implementations exist and do they cover all of the major sections of the document? There are a small number of COSE related documents that will also be addressed by the working group dealing with additional attributes and algorithms that need to be reviewed and published. The first set of three are listed in the deliverables. A re-charter will be required to expand this list. The SUIT working group has identified a need for the use of hash-based signatures in the form of Leighton-Micali Signatures (LMS) (draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs). This signature form is resistant to quantum computing and is low-cost for validation. The SUIT working group additionally has identified a need for registering hash functions for indirect packaging. The W3C Web Authentication working group has identified a need for the ability to use algorithms which are currently part of TPMs which are widely deployed. At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates was not a feature that needed to be transferred from the JOSE key document (RFC 7517). Since that time a better sense of how certificates would be used both in the IoT sphere and with COSE outside of the IoT sphere has been developed. The need to be able to identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be provided. This will additionally require definition of a small number of hash functions for compact references to certificates. Key management and binding of keys to identities are out of scope for the working group. The COSE WG will not innovate in terms of cryptography. The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to those in RFCs or active IETF WG documents. The working group will coordinate its progress with the ACE, SUIT and CORE working groups to ensure that we are fulfilling the needs of these constituencies to the extent relevant to their work. Other groups may be added to this list as the set of use cases is expanded, in consultation with the responsible Area Director. The WG will have five deliverables: 1. Republishing a version of RFC 8152 suitable for advancement to full standard. 2. Use of Hash-based Signature algorithms in COSE using draft-housley-suit-cose-hash-sig as a starting point. 3. Placement of X.509 certificates in COSE messages and keys using draft-schaad-cose-x509 as a starting point. 4. Define the algorithms needed for W3C Web Authentication for COSE using draft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms and draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a starting point. 5. Define a small set of hash functions. Milestones: TBD From nobody Wed Oct 17 07:38:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93E6130DE0; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TDmTa8ynpbKc; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D52AC130DDE; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:38:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.200.7]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9HEbvei026196; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:38:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.114] (p54A6CA9F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.202.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42Zvsw4klHz1Bql; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:37:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 561479874.377188-fedd7e99c522a9762603e0f7657e5add Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:37:55 +0200 Message-Id: To: ace , "core@ietf.org WG" , cose , cbor@ietf.org, t2trg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF103: "FINAL" AGENDA X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:38:11 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the "FINAL" AGENDA for IETF103. A few changes from the DRAFT AGENDA. I waited a bit with sending this as a few more side meetings have become known, as well. Of course, "FINAL" doesn't mean final. cbor/teep and 6tisch/ace (was suit) are annoying but probably livable. qirg no longer conflicts with core :-). dinrg is now on top of lpwan. secdispatch on top of t2trg will all but make sure no security people attend t2trg. All times are ICT (Indochina Time) =3D=3D UTC +7 hours. There is no daylight saving time in effect in Thailand. DST will have ended in Europe by then (e.g., CET =3D UTC+0100) and will end in the US during the initial weekend (On Sun, Nov 4; e.g. EST =3D UTC-0500). (You can get pure UTC times on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Please note that the Friday schedule is still evolving; plan to stick around until 13:20 or you may miss interesting conversations. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten SATURDAY/SUNDAY, November 3/4. 2018 -- Hackathon (including various interops) (Centre Ville), e.g.: T2TRG WISHI, possibly some CBOR, LPWAN, TLS 1.3, EST-COAPS, TEEP Please see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/103hackathon -- Sun 1700-1900 Welcome Reception - Garden at Queen's Park -- Sun 1800-2000 Hot RFC Lightning Talks - Chitlada 3 MONDAY, November 5, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Chitlada 2 ART dispatch Dispatch WG - Joint with ARTAREA Meeting 1 OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Boromph. 1/2 RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG Meeting 2 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Chitlada 1 IRTF cfrg Crypto Forum Chitlada 2 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Boromph. 1/2 ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Meeting 1 OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG Chitlada 2 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Chitlada 3 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Meeting 2 INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Chitlada 1 IRTF irtfopen IRTF Open Meeting Chitlada 2 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG TUESDAY, November 6, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Chitlada 1 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Meeting 1 INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG Meeting 2 IRTF*** dinrg Decentralized Internet Infrastructure = Proposed RG Boromph. 4 SEC tokbind Token Binding WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Chitlada 3 INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG Chitlada 2 IRTF qirg Quantum Internet Proposed Research Group Meeting 1 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Chitlada 3 INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Chitlada 2 SEC rats Remote ATtestation ProcedureS BOF Chitlada 1 TSV quic QUIC WG 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Chitlada 1 IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Meeting 1 IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing Meeting 2 SEC secdispatch Security Dispatch WG Pagoda -- 1700..1800 CACAO side meeting Apartment 3 -- 1800..2000 IoT Onboarding side meeting (lear/mcr) WEDNESDAY, November 7, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Chitlada 3 ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG Boromph. 3 RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Meeting 2 SEC *** teep Trusted Execution Environment = Provisioning WG Chitlada 1 TSV quic QUIC WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Meeting 2 INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Chitlada 1 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Chitlada 2 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1350-1520 Afternoon Session I Meeting 2 GEN wugh WGs Using GitHub BOF Chitlada 3 INT homenet Home Networking WG Meeting 1 IRTF panrg Path Aware Networking RG -- 1400..1500 IoT Onboarding Mechanisms side meeting 1540-1710 Afternoon Session II Chitlada 3 INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Meeting 1 IRTF pearg Privacy Enhancements and Assessments = Proposed Research Group Boromph. 3 RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG Boromph. 1/2 RTG rift Routing In Fat Trees WG Meeting 2 TSV taps Transport Services WG THURSDAY, November 8, 2018 0900-1100 Morning Session I Chitlada 1 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Meeting 2 IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Chitlada 2 SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Chitlada 2 ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Boromph. 1/2 RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Chitlada 1 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG Meeting 1 TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Meeting 2 INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Chitlada 2 RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Chitlada 1 SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Boromph. 3 INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Chitlada 3 RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Chitlada 1 SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Boromph. 1/2 SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG FRIDAY, November 9, 2018 Various ad-hoc meetings, please see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/103sidemeetings#FRIDAY Boromph. 4 -- 0900..1320 T2TRG work meeting Boromph. 3 -- 1000..1200 COIN (Computing in the Network) From nobody Thu Oct 18 01:51:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F9A1292F1 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:51:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a9ss50Wny-sk for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out11.electric.net (smtp-out11.electric.net [185.38.181.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07539128CF3 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 1gD41N-000Ndv-Vj by out11c.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gD41O-000NeV-TN for cose@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:51:10 -0700 Received: by emcmailer; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:51:10 -0700 Received: from [194.218.146.197] (helo=sp-mail-2.sp.se) by out11c.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gD41N-000Ndv-Vj for cose@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:51:09 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.166] (10.116.0.226) by sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:51:09 +0200 To: From: Ludwig Seitz Message-ID: <9c5c10a6-b9b3-61af-b728-2ad3d8d85e08@ri.se> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:51:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.116.0.226] X-ClientProxiedBy: sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162) To sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162) X-Outbound-IP: 194.218.146.197 X-Env-From: ludwig.seitz@ri.se X-Proto: esmtps X-Revdns: X-HELO: sp-mail-2.sp.se X-TLS: TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:128 X-Authenticated_ID: X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c) X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s) X-PolicySMART: 14510320 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Possible errata in RFC 8152 X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:51:15 -0000 Have a look at this issue in the tracker: https://github.com/cose-wg/cose-spec/issues/191 /Ludwig -- Ludwig Seitz, PhD Security Lab, RISE Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51 From nobody Thu Oct 18 03:23:45 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09020130E8F for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:23:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OU2dlUMQ7OeQ for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C030E130E9A for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 598C4B8126A; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:23:04 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf@augustcellars.com, kaduk@mit.edu, ekr@rtfm.com, jricher@mit.edu, kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: hjian@google.com, cose@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20181018102304.598C4B8126A@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5533) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:23:42 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8152, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5533 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Jian Huang Section: 3.1 Original Text ------------- alg: This parameter is used to indicate the algorithm used for the security processing. This parameter MUST be authenticated where the ability to do so exists. This support is provided by AEAD algorithms or construction (COSE_Sign, COSE_Sign0, COSE_Mac, and COSE_Mac0). Corrected Text -------------- alg: This parameter is used to indicate the algorithm used for the security processing. This parameter MUST be authenticated where the ability to do so exists. This support is provided by AEAD algorithms or construction (COSE_Sign, COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac, and COSE_Mac0). Notes ----- COSE_Sign0 is only mentioned once. I think it should have been COSE_Sign1 Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) -------------------------------------- Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : J. Schaad Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu Oct 18 07:42:00 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7608129C6B for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KPSTL68_fbnc for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A58C130DC3 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:36:41 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'RFC Errata System' , , , , CC: , References: <20181018102304.598C4B8126A@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20181018102304.598C4B8126A@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:41:19 -0700 Message-ID: <000001d466f0$a4522ca0$ecf685e0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHiez7Tty7JMM9KRPj/kgU0WhNOsqUI6rRQ Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5533) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:41:59 -0000 This should be approved - it is incorrect. > -----Original Message----- > From: RFC Errata System > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 3:23 AM > To: ietf@augustcellars.com; kaduk@mit.edu; ekr@rtfm.com; = jricher@mit.edu; > kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com > Cc: hjian@google.com; cose@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5533) >=20 > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8152, "CBOR = Object > Signing and Encryption (COSE)". >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5533 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Jian Huang >=20 > Section: 3.1 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- > alg: This parameter is used to indicate the algorithm used for the > security processing. This parameter MUST be authenticated where > the ability to do so exists. This support is provided by AEAD > algorithms or construction (COSE_Sign, COSE_Sign0, COSE_Mac, and > COSE_Mac0). >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- > alg: This parameter is used to indicate the algorithm used for the > security processing. This parameter MUST be authenticated where > the ability to do so exists. This support is provided by AEAD > algorithms or construction (COSE_Sign, COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac, and > COSE_Mac0). >=20 > Notes > ----- > COSE_Sign0 is only mentioned once. I think it should have been = COSE_Sign1 >=20 > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please = use "Reply > All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a = decision is > reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit = the report, > if necessary. >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) > -------------------------------------- > Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) > Publication Date : July 2017 > Author(s) : J. Schaad > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu Oct 18 17:12:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24298130DE7; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:12:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNa6A6QQcn3i; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDF5C130E30; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D02E7B80A7A; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:12:04 -0700 (PDT) To: hjian@google.com, ietf@augustcellars.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: kaduk@mit.edu, iesg@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20181019001204.D02E7B80A7A@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8152 (5533) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 00:12:33 -0000 The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC8152, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5533 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Jian Huang Date Reported: 2018-10-18 Held by: Benjamin Kaduk (IESG) Section: 3.1 Original Text ------------- alg: This parameter is used to indicate the algorithm used for the security processing. This parameter MUST be authenticated where the ability to do so exists. This support is provided by AEAD algorithms or construction (COSE_Sign, COSE_Sign0, COSE_Mac, and COSE_Mac0). Corrected Text -------------- alg: This parameter is used to indicate the algorithm used for the security processing. This parameter MUST be authenticated where the ability to do so exists. This support is provided by AEAD algorithms or construction (COSE_Sign, COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac, and COSE_Mac0). Notes ----- COSE_Sign0 is only mentioned once in the document, but COSE_Sign1 appears many times. -------------------------------------- RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) -------------------------------------- Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : J. Schaad Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Tue Oct 23 20:19:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67FD130E6C; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:18:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Spencer Dawkins To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:18:51 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 03:18:56 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Block When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It doesn't look like this has been revised since it was sent for external review yet, has it? I noticed that Suresh's question about IRTF documents and about "ANAMA" hasn't resulted in either replies or text changes. I'm sure this will be a very short-lived BLOCK, which are the best kind of BLOCK ... From nobody Wed Oct 24 06:51:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2F9128DFD for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:51:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WsZfyEF5H6J2 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C0AD12785F for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id x22-v6so1657971ljc.10 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:51:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/o9HT8R1dyzC/9mr3+FHP4dywd+kEZixtzKoDiwV81g=; b=upjiEwmKgQXcbvTfsUh31ne4T7gzFKEsQPr96woD1IkQCsAF2v9GICXq0m33B9hLW+ 4Q9gjfossaAVozlxiGG2pXGt9GXnz58YNhIf9PqJu0vdRVkAgJ7qFYTtnx7xU/4EW9bz 3KQ0EE2JvfRQGjPfMbGh3b4XLA6tsggQK8w84KtR7Z4LdLAEFREUv3hQz1+WkIe+b3n+ 9D2n3LsN7ddwjAqblF+p3EbrVzjvUBNYZx1a1lmGDzg/mdEO3REibvamiLWTCXGwfjj3 r2wF8oOplznc+HMM6Nvpt9AiMeEHAzQ80Qp4dyfck/hug+feCQDyCFf/sf2iMWe04W76 NYGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/o9HT8R1dyzC/9mr3+FHP4dywd+kEZixtzKoDiwV81g=; b=euexTQaRWO9v756z5fWdsJ42l+eeiRiGSbq6XM680onFwrfpXFUS9JCcmFn4+KYaF8 EsBrLULA3D2/WKuf6FJwfEMN02UIiPtNqYA51+EyuB5Sf5TjVmPLCfmQhmLZDzBcDWwx VRpVkss4VbhCdNu4jbkE6VHF+r3FToYdHbXPBdYVhSequFUUfTpTM8rw28em+7EPIAY4 ahdfdBwH59ouL+2bwUgFlpuDupGx+Q2TvVBeg0KCDxDv8sYz7/7RGmgcGqwUwH6P3ogj s4tkfYKv7GiKhBlz7FRgVYF69BJB+HKq/IYdeJ4pI2EnQBHm0liH0TJdw6m74wxnZP3W LTEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLKOq9Dwd/um3GhkJCvehoIQD/fw6ChJeRdrg9wSHjD1T1257Zb hrrgCpR1mbQD5LHJwgryz4VGlHtrToHd9HmA1aQWjA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cSkbdXLEqRYXbbU00OYMT++nfYlm1QBrl4T/qehjyYqHcWJYo6XDuTh5I05/2DMExzxH89duOUEwAxoawRoVo= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5441:: with SMTP id y1-v6mr1956219ljd.51.1540389088215; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:51:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:50:52 -0700 Message-ID: To: Spencer Dawkins Cc: IESG , cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b59600578f9c816" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:51:33 -0000 --0000000000006b59600578f9c816 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot? I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back or whatever.... -Ekr On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:19 PM Spencer Dawkins < spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Block > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > It doesn't look like this has been revised since it was sent for external > review yet, has it? I noticed that Suresh's question about IRTF documents > and > about "ANAMA" hasn't resulted in either replies or text changes. > > I'm sure this will be a very short-lived BLOCK, which are the best kind of > BLOCK ... > > > > > --0000000000006b59600578f9c816 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think there's just some process confusion. I di= dn't explicitly send it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the = call and forgot?

I am happy to make these changes = now or can make them and send it back or whatever....

-Ekr


On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:19 PM Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>= wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered= the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cos= e/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't look like this has been revised since it was sent for extern= al
review yet, has it? I noticed that Suresh's question about IRTF documen= ts and
about "ANAMA" hasn't resulted in either replies or text chang= es.

I'm sure this will be a very short-lived BLOCK, which are the best kind= of
BLOCK ...




--0000000000006b59600578f9c816-- From nobody Wed Oct 24 16:49:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C1A126CC7; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:49:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ben Campbell To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <154042498365.6943.14388763496921943031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:49:43 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:49:44 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I had some mostly editorial comments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/9eTTcLBTTl4gU9U0jmdCptZuuGQ that do not seem to have been addressed. None of them were show stoppers, so if they were _intentionally_ not addressed, that is fine :-) From nobody Wed Oct 24 21:30:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84AF12D4EE; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4DpQKOn_mfh2; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EC8C128CFD; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Svantevit.attlocal.net (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9P4UY1t045394 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:30:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.attlocal.net To: Eric Rescorla , Spencer Dawkins Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, IESG , cose@ietf.org References: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:30:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:30:39 -0000 On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send > it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot? It went to external review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g > I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back > or whatever.... Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as an administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok? /a From nobody Thu Oct 25 06:01:20 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965E0130E25; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:01:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Suresh Krishnan To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <154047247753.16342.11277809956855344359.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:01:17 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:01:18 -0000 Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I had some non blocking comments on the charter at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/RaDwLxCZ4L8V6eI6kfwiIO3e6v8 From nobody Thu Oct 25 06:15:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249B012F1AB; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id upaKV-MCiBS2; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD070130E27; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id c24-v6so6736458lfi.12; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EqGfOf++Yz2Cq7Z7fJ/soTwBPqlNE96tzULmV3Vz724=; b=dfXh7yw+feq7myErJjtaRo2fNCo7oKnAS+Z2a48m6CCGM7HxBIdmY1BbMxxNFWQHsG Egh+oFGieauXc/KbIdN4SiN/wp8AYpGnXpK7RJHm0AhV8QSwyckxYfg4noMm1MsLN4Il zIhtv5WdSi5ycSprsh9aG8fGj+sdbVSwAwkznrNc4yR2dreAYqAKeWoMj5sUDT5ZTvTj JzgNGRlSWYhvpI125nw0lo3T3LawWbsBCsvX3P7EQhu/eGBDmnewKThdhlj6Adq0X4SV tQs6/JFNRNqKPjh/H4y4vve4S8x1lsZ+9Vnn8YoRz0syULzQOcRi/2ttmoNvnBZ3piuE 4j2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EqGfOf++Yz2Cq7Z7fJ/soTwBPqlNE96tzULmV3Vz724=; b=HLUblpkTMVr0/QHfdW1jc+Er1NXo7z+cyKp1gp8sshc3ftFGhOV6Gv7irpUyVqEMAM 0L6r8Slv6WBKfyu6zaQMp0JlHtIXq55+JmyW4O1qRnZf3XwHMnfZ3798lvUPAnhZ28Cq lUGyTd3TBcfksYfVwqoXrRcMVXK11ttaXN648tzJOLZcmeO0THSfeOTKRkmJ5LlWdC9X lFHGJyfb8GaamJpc8IAD3PyKmqJF9W8UExp0rLzR8YPGaWugYMHflaIFDw84zrMaZJmL hFLZrc3dcv2TvDZpdO/wYClYG4i1WcL9me6d8HhTLD7qQV/uY1RWOoqRF1j+/N4uMH6V OQpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLwvZIpCnEU5utHm14iRkPKRH1uJfGSf5rDQCketKXgoruu38f8 vKk2wjoWXAWN1yWV1j+Zl3sjXaVCWVr3q516l2s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5f/imYsazjXyiQQFOGPs2SnLQBltG0DMS2oJvuZgsUGsuP2/+gwUTGDvxo4lJ/1HYkKvADfPwTK+vdYFGBN6O8= X-Received: by 2002:a19:a302:: with SMTP id m2mr1236424lfe.108.1540473333848; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:15:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:15:21 -0500 Message-ID: To: Adam Roach Cc: Eric Rescorla , cose-chairs@ietf.org, IESG , cose@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9a9f105790d65f2" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:15:38 -0000 --000000000000d9a9f105790d65f2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Adam and Eric, On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:30 PM Adam Roach wrote: > On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send > > it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot? > > > It went to external review: > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g I checked quickly in my own email boxes, but didn't see it. I may have missed actual e-mail - I had a PUBREQ that never appeared in my inbox about that time, which is unusual. Thanks for checking the archives. I probably would have balloted No Objection if I'd seen that. If that did happen, I'm fine removing my Block - there is no Yes, and I was No Objection on the version that went to External Review, and didn't disagree with any of the other changes being discussed. EKR, would you let me know when I should reballot? Thanks! Spencer > > > > > I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back > > or whatever.... > > > Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I > don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as an > administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok? > > /a > > --000000000000d9a9f105790d65f2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Adam and Eric,=C2=A0

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:30 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicit= ly send
> it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot?


It went to external review:

https://mailarchive.i= etf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g=

I checked quickly in my own email boxes, but didn't= see it. I may have missed actual e-mail - I had a PUBREQ that never appear= ed in my inbox about that time, which is unusual.=C2=A0

Thanks for checking the archives. I probably would have balloted No O= bjection if I'd seen that.=C2=A0

If that did h= appen, I'm fine removing my Block - there is no Yes, and I was No Objec= tion on the version that went to External Review, and didn't disagree w= ith any of the other changes being discussed.=C2=A0

EKR, would you let me know when I should reballot?

Thanks!

Spencer
=C2=A0



> I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back=
> or whatever....


Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I =
don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as a= n
administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok?

/a

--000000000000d9a9f105790d65f2-- From nobody Thu Oct 25 06:37:55 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65002130E5F for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gFmGcJKhTqO7 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A281C120072 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id m18-v6so6814293lfl.11 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zn1u2BC7OukLIgx8ELfmmAHS5Uh15g/JU270HVSJKCA=; b=IbR0w+1vsKpAdxRASCpYt3sKz3sOJGK8XES/x0KMnOSbG6IdrmnLFn2tMplMOsXCYn zikAHk68X3NUkztA12NszihCSxu7LtQcCyAiDylltMYvGDK/Fl0MAXXeTCK9YkOrfKdx bsDlF3a7cJtpo3ODozng+VVGG0dZccL5CngZxHp/8SGcGZVwKx5z+7FzHx4opSv7r+i5 YwO1pkRsKt6yOm52dYuLYMrt+X/czP6xDmFzpLPl+58Nn0QooY1SUzm6DXJ0OMmCRfcz VuLR/AnroCx99VKA8opih2ZDMJbH8ypqyfh0ZtThMiGTHXyKXPm6x1EY+9LQh4NCVXWx 1/+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zn1u2BC7OukLIgx8ELfmmAHS5Uh15g/JU270HVSJKCA=; b=EPOrK2bFp38RMpsVs3lxvCrQ5dK7YCKcg9EJsZSXzb8fQAUtLRh288vrPk/CAnz5Tk doRMvPigZomwJJPQ8z5oixG9Nc9pFW/PrJOcS50Mbl7LmV1NUoYooTkou+h2llgKJTOt LaZgiBDLnRoJBduCqm7DiJn/dyk5aKsC/ESEr4kiJDbzuMJlfTfrVtePrZldG1gTDoOI 0azpCpsbddN8pSIFSOzdDtllRZ34SK32ZPzGmqQ+2bJd6gNZTfT0bBeyzTo+J6w/kl4D yCEmS5iVB9+BDogfVSxgEz94aTBlerIMLck4XB0cHTuAORZIX6GWtIhjvGYg2KYPieL8 opvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gL3fEYahkqfKcHWBnEeXOpuZS2Ey6e3ke02sYXysm8HpN3LLBgX 8hIe4W7RiGpEdw8PGIQASa2qcEFWuWjRR4z8JR8enmrH X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c2tYWZPtS8usEpuzCjiIyUWk9iE2X96Tbd2SfEfImEWgCFaWIkkSJZg7YuMDiWkCAguyFOuQ86SC8i4Ima0qg= X-Received: by 2002:a19:ca51:: with SMTP id h17mr1186190lfj.126.1540474669724; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:12 -0700 Message-ID: To: Adam Roach Cc: Spencer Dawkins , cose-chairs@ietf.org, IESG , cose@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000079969a05790db5b4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:37:54 -0000 --00000000000079969a05790db5b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM Adam Roach wrote: > On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send > > it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot? > > > It went to external review: > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that AFAIK I didn't press a button to make it happen, which is why I didn't update it per comments. > > I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back > > or whatever.... > > > Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I > don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as an > administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok? > WFM. -Ekr > /a > > --00000000000079969a05790db5b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed= , Oct 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
O= n 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicit= ly send
> it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot?


It went to external review:

https://mailarchive.i= etf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g
=

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that AFA= IK I didn't press a button to make it happen, which is why I didn't= update it per comments.

=C2=A0
> I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back=
> or whatever....


Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I =
don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as a= n
administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok?

WFM.

-Ekr

=

/a

--00000000000079969a05790db5b4-- From nobody Thu Oct 25 06:49:02 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E8E130E5F; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:49:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDWdxrEO6cvM; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC38120072; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id s15-v6so8303037lji.3; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mMR8bZ7+9C+Qa8oCf96J7MsNuxmJPNEqU12FoI+lc20=; b=Y/MD96YESY1c9gcIkTM7Mg+ZrScKo0hDXWeDQ5x/FUj6dW+mZctLReVwbXx2le3wDB +pXpYXeyD0e30W6IGYbzoy30AkgHv4b0tJua8nLo5BuzYMujtRy8HXVNlNSBTuSYG9W1 coyDAvIf5Jspz9EQt4J8Kjas3bWgSyIwQSgNRsh6BADl014dHweXjLDb2j1TrMaVtdX4 eRVNfAgsrt12oSkvV/zgCf5/qsTcU7gX/bm7ay3iBZAU+PQMDlebiQ4o/0FbRzc614wt WzfQfXWiST2mzCwz+Ck8M3Nn0tu5UTou6NVKfSzXp43wGuhxBr6nzqML+/1n+yKjQ9/u sQUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mMR8bZ7+9C+Qa8oCf96J7MsNuxmJPNEqU12FoI+lc20=; b=LbnQYIjzWRQBWCmNdw6/IYSLR4TSaZzmjibTm8Eey1Jhd0wFkBQjMcR3GOE8Ti275o 00JXJV53xLJK2SLQPF3E6+O4bHkPZBAK3ZVluSkn4s/lmw2mB39XRqJAAtWtXxkixRiB 67ESPodvtcBfI/+d0fSiH3WZlUDQqutzgO/vOEU9E0At2/ioW+frMqmFlx8HuuGf7wGA ydCX/Z8WLwWM/ZUs9Bnu5YOpZm4PmqPgu2glqbT4u4cNudVSp8y+4XG6LMNmpjOpo6hA vtnuThUzZlhJ9KeBHnVWrNuahj/bv5C+j7Gbo02a3nYUfY5LYcCYGQE+hDriY8uIBENr NKEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJ+gFOOghOf2g5O7RS+lDTgcEfQdDnmkfuhXJ2QOAh8U8etYP6H Vf+Y3UBxfoI296hDSYTEZH44uSdSZg6v5UZ3FyMpBIqh X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5f0NFaLaHbqbL+LA18SNhDEh0DPDow2B/uP4JxvWXVUSZkcFQSfchJw2hYi3lV4ZBInqFsnrmun1NWFE2OVSwE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:197:: with SMTP id f23-v6mr1343001lji.144.1540475333761; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:48:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154035113167.31341.13641269865105411020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:48:41 -0500 Message-ID: To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Adam Roach , cose-chairs@ietf.org, IESG , cose@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000df9eb05790ddda4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:49:01 -0000 --0000000000000df9eb05790ddda4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Eric, On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:37 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM Adam Roach wrote: > >> On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> > I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send >> > it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot? >> >> >> It went to external review: >> >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g > > > Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that AFAIK I didn't press a > button to make it happen, which is why I didn't update it per comments. > So, looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/history/, it looks like Cindy pushed that button, which is why you didn't see it happen, but I think the meta-point is that we probably should have had it Approved/AD Follow-up, or something like that. Because it was just Approved with no substate, that would go out mechanically, if not automatically. I THINK. Good question for Robert or someone else who understands the substates better than I do. (None of us process THAT many charter updates!) So somehow, that step was missed, which would have put it in Eric's AD dashboard for follow-up, like all the other documents we approve pending edits. And I'm guessing here, too. Some of you guys do code sprints on the datatracker - can anyone comment? Spencer > > > >> > I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back >> > or whatever.... >> >> >> Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I >> don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as an >> administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok? >> > > WFM. > > -Ekr > > >> /a >> >> --0000000000000df9eb05790ddda4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Eric,=C2=A0

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:37 AM Eric Rescorla &l= t;ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:


On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM Ada= m Roach <adam@nost= rum.com> wrote:
On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicit= ly send
> it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot?


It went to external review:

https://mailarchive.i= etf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g
=

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that AFA= IK I didn't press a button to make it happen, which is why I didn't= update it per comments.

= So, looking at=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/history= /, it looks like Cindy pushed that button, which is why you didn't = see it happen, but I think the meta-point is that we probably should have h= ad it Approved/AD Follow-up, or something like that.=C2=A0

Because it was just Approved with no substate, that would go out m= echanically, if not automatically. I THINK. Good question for Robert or som= eone else who understands the substates better than I do. (None of us proce= ss THAT many charter updates!)

So somehow, that st= ep was missed, which would have put it in Eric's AD dashboard for follo= w-up, like all the other documents we approve pending edits.=C2=A0

And I'm guessing here, too. Some of you guys do code s= prints on the datatracker - can anyone comment?

Sp= encer
=C2=A0

=C2=A0
> I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back=
> or whatever....


Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I =
don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as a= n
administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok?

WFM.

-Ekr

=

/a

--0000000000000df9eb05790ddda4-- From nobody Thu Oct 25 07:45:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cose@ietf.org Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B206130E5A; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:45:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Spencer Dawkins To: "The IESG" Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <154047871907.16324.5513614130971997248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:45:19 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:45:19 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the conversation about the mechanics of rechartering a zombie working group on today's telechat!