From nobody Mon Feb 11 10:54:23 2019 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 B3AE51310DB for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:54:21 -0800 (PST) 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ackl-io.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 FKowWBODMcii for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 C7D16131125 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:54:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id q18so5910491wrx.9 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:54:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kEELFd1kofE03SL7a0g1Xjr+2Loi+y6Jh+RIufJQA50=; b=B7wRQz+5wixRofawBjv+zwu02KYGRYrSz5Eugk7EMyD73HVsHggLVH4uQI5XFjIfgI SJ+vRBUSfpyRLT3kvgcYX6mhv3J2XwotRs8GtKkl/B9CZwHtHFW3RER5Z/mPmShpS3V4 NvHxogbZB1ptamoTu0FIgjvJUYtWgF23wkb7D8wK1Bp1EjVSjVk3bJePdulvwDrw4t/5 Uxz8JJf0knYJnjYynXNZ3LpuCHnD+vngSZOAt+KpW8airzsReHI1qGKc2HYnUuh7ebjP TEOQjBlDkVH4FdH3Q3X2KSMSdM0xD2if6bXowIkRVWOfuX0X96SZPTiglhgOs3/k6Z5O aSBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kEELFd1kofE03SL7a0g1Xjr+2Loi+y6Jh+RIufJQA50=; b=n4IG6Xb47lUsWN9+av8QGfCww05H2Gou/EWcAfygQsZwrMmxDEF4tYSRImEen0mXW2 Z1IOsELmZDJ+Wh5Rqi8xbmU9ht8u+MgE8Sq8OS//uieJiWfBLcNC+GfYZ12C44HsLmI/ U1PLZNFJnbLiiuA5blzYDy5YwrJhDQK1pKy1qBxO7BCSYQIlBza6i/z2W85q8Dfb0sYV hw6fjxs7tZT4QzSAj9+ujeglJlhHQtJdaBonjFANr5plkYURxSImkcwYuNO29gEao0zk FMIuexlMOcQNol0cLy4yaZPXO9AI/lh6hxdbfX6hc89IquGMcl2DAqKjJJbCRyQo4QE7 zLzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZ0idJP49xN+6k8i5nznYFHJUuzvxoJ9f9posDLTDC89jlaYWuD C0j1OQx4B4UMzIbIFZ5KdsrVMjDtlsmiKBP+8zm7JkhG84k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZntVVKLV4RglJsXovW4eR37yQUf2pTA/aysnxPlkLaGdGo2vPGAmbUf2xQZ/A9iIlrJE++P23ucplvIvtPoi0= X-Received: by 2002:adf:dc08:: with SMTP id t8mr13295042wri.57.1549911255434; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:54:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ivaylo petrov Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 19:53:48 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d059e20581a2d58f" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Webex meeting details: COSE Interim Meeting 2019-02-15 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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:54:22 -0000 --000000000000d059e20581a2d58f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear WG, As you know, we will be having our interim meeting this Friday (2019-02-15) from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC. Here is the connection details: COSE Virtual Interim (2019-02-15) Friday, February 15, 2019 7:00 pm | Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00) | 1 hr JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m91d7d738d36350e8bb93b10e95340399 Meeting number (access code): 643 246 056 Meeting password: WJQnT22h JOIN BY PHONE 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported): tel:%2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*643246056%23%23*01* Here is the proposed agenda: 1. administrivia - Note Well - agenda bashing - charter overview - minute taking - blue sheets 2. status of 8152bis docs (algs and struct ) - check on errata - other outstanding issues - request reviewers 3. status of x509 doc (here ) - outstanding issues? - request reviewers 4. status of suit-hash-sig - request reviews 5. status of webauthn draft(s) - draft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms - draft-jones-webauthn-cose-secp256k1 - request combined draft 6. Next Meeting We hope to meet you there! Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Working Group Chairs --000000000000d059e20581a2d58f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear WG,

As you know, we will be having our interi= m meeting this Friday (2019-02-15) from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC.

=
Here is the connection details:
<= blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<= div>
=
COSE Virtual Interim (2019-02-15)
Friday, February 15, 2019
7:00 pm=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00)=C2=A0 |= =C2=A0 1 hr
<= div>
JOIN WEBEX MEETING
Meeting number (access code): 643 246 056
<= /div>
Meeting password: WJQnT22h
=

<= div>
=
JOIN BY= PHONE
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)=C2=A0=
<= font color=3D"#0b5394" face=3D"verdana, sans-serif">Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported): tel:%= 2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*643246056%23%23*01*

Here is the proposed agenda:
1. administrivia
=
<= div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Note Well
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - agenda bashing
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - <= a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cose/about/">charter overview=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - minute taking
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - blue sheets
2. status of 8152bis d= ocs (algs and struct)
=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0-= check on errata
=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- other outstanding is= sues
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- request reviewers=C2=A0=
3. status of x509 doc (here)
=
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0- outstanding issues?
<= /div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- request revi= ewers
4. status of suit-hash-sig
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - request reviews
<= /div>
=
5. status of we= bauthn draft(s)
<= div class=3D"gmail_default">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - draft-jones-= webauthn-cose-algorithms
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - r= equest combined draft
=
6. Next Meeting<= /div>
<= span style=3D"font-size:14.4px">
We hope to meet you there!
=
Best regards,
- Matthew and Ivaylo
COSE Working Group Chairs


--000000000000d059e20581a2d58f-- From nobody Thu Feb 14 18:36:33 2019 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 B1171131090; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:36:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155019817868.26518.16834758899660248458@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:36:18 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01.txt 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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:36:19 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption WG of the IETF. Title : CBOR Algorithms for Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01.txt Pages : 44 Date : 2019-02-14 Abstract: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the ability to have basic security services defined for this data format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol. This specification describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR for serialization. COSE additionally describes how to represent cryptographic keys using CBOR. In this specification the conventions for the use of a number of cryptographic algorithms with COSE. The details of the structure of COSE are defined in [I-D.schaad-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. This document along with [I-D.schaad-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] obsoletes RFC8152. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Feb 14 18:37:13 2019 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 DAF7E130E99; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:37:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155019822487.26563.11194589830020655067@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:37:04 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01.txt 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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:37:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption WG of the IETF. Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) - Structures and Process Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01.txt Pages : 83 Date : 2019-02-14 Abstract: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the ability to have basic security services defined for this data format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol. This specification describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR for serialization. This specification additionally describes how to represent cryptographic keys using CBOR. This document along with [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs] obsoletes RFC8152. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Feb 14 19:05:37 2019 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 16825130E91 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:05:36 -0800 (PST) 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 zFqaw57Uqlkf for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:05:34 -0800 (PST) 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 251B1130E7D for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:05:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:05:28 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'cose' References: <155019822487.26563.11194589830020655067@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <155019822487.26563.11194589830020655067@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:05:26 -0800 Message-ID: <007a01d4c4db$4e94e610$ebbeb230$@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: AQKErSgXXUfSytaMyMb/tdnZwsjEhKSAW4eA Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01.txt 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, 15 Feb 2019 03:05:36 -0000 There are no big changes from the -00 version to this version. Major changes were to pull back in the implementation section, add in a place holder for changes from RFC 8152, and making sure all of the errata have been fixed. The -alg draft basically just got the place holder and nothing else. Jim -----Original Message----- From: COSE On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 6:37 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: cose@ietf.org Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption WG of the IETF. Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) - Structures and Process Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01.txt Pages : 83 Date : 2019-02-14 Abstract: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the ability to have basic security services defined for this data format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol. This specification describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR for serialization. This specification additionally describes how to represent cryptographic keys using CBOR. This document along with [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs] obsoletes RFC8152. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Fri Feb 15 02:55:14 2019 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 44D8C12D4E9 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:55:12 -0800 (PST) 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ackl-io.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 eI0cOGLUheSy for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (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 642F1130FA2 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id v26so9160829wmh.3 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:55:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VBJyYw2GdDTsukCXXcsvwxHZ3N+I6ePtX3VmmWqVZO0=; b=m/7HVwJ1o40wmxKI1I7Cwf8A4S4hArtB4tcRxEnFQIQFABj13keQIw4YlV3vuAdaCJ dOu8kgxIHDr/PgPn4X/RIREI/oYVrgLZFRcE0iJZ3ck0jk7pjCtuzF/KNdCZG2ksqDjq oNciaugPpTv/riukAWY/KYqU5SpqaDlq8t8Xy3KYwQxFFHn8Zs3Bidsm8Br/uMSEU66o qLx49cB2NBqCTaTBLhfnLVpdLQV5lHhZt9wJry38BI7EXNOJBYNi1M6X7GXkt3ytjbZj btpke9XkDRRhTF1wTKn9W4RJGiDfFf+9OSgrGAmQhBShS+GYiw9cZnNHLIfM2ipieYW2 mrjA== 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=VBJyYw2GdDTsukCXXcsvwxHZ3N+I6ePtX3VmmWqVZO0=; b=nLs27vdM/EG/aT43FXm/3Kf1NGrolhfnho6B1tQBpEylIpI/k7mb8mXIE3kyu90zgO PHhJWuWCej5i4zt/YB1qxUCSoFwETcKxJ3oWFj4cZZpl6JVJjqHqE5qWrFSxeEJ6GYrA 3P1enC9CJQWL3VcOgQSKFP2dssA8pTwP/nR5aU7cRbePER/r/BFjG3oF0xmJoWPQPMjJ i+ZHzfBeJnsQSpbUK/hxw2SNiuDK3yAEAh80hNC3fgxLxWqxY0HdFfh26RxS8oR+TViM svzbKmaDc+lKcLVjbWKro1DyR0rSmvwV93xXKxrvCs1YwcJ8B5tC1od8LTJiIW88zqBD SLrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaf3hUDULxX3KYpsQulWz97Myqaprd1+HkOZeo/oHbNiw2AljX0 Bi9rIsVsUY5B5Tq+EVozsryS8S0sB0WI/GgyiAtt/ikQ1uY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZAf3GmQ9eUkWqzcAvOts8YQLCBkf+2bnzLleDtjBqeM04uu3RiUY6jyqCsRRKeckXM4L2L//fzp0ji3F0FlEA= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:27c6:: with SMTP id n189mr5928647wmn.108.1550228105239; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:55:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: ivaylo petrov Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:54:39 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000088c4c00581ec9bb5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Webex meeting details: COSE Interim Meeting 2019-02-15 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, 15 Feb 2019 10:55:12 -0000 --00000000000088c4c00581ec9bb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, This is simply a reminder that we are having our interim today 15.02.2019. You can find all the relevant information in my previous email cited below. For taking minutes we will be using etherpad [1]. Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Working Group Chairs [1]: *https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/cose?useMonospaceFont=true * On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 7:53 PM ivaylo petrov wrote: > Dear WG, > > As you know, we will be having our interim meeting this Friday > (2019-02-15) from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC. > > Here is the connection details: > > COSE Virtual Interim (2019-02-15) > Friday, February 15, 2019 > 7:00 pm | Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00) | 1 hr > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m91d7d738d36350e8bb93b10e95340399 > Meeting number (access code): 643 246 056 > Meeting password: WJQnT22h > > JOIN BY PHONE > 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) > Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported): > tel:%2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*643246056%23%23*01* > > > Here is the proposed agenda: > > 1. administrivia > - Note Well > - agenda bashing > - charter overview > - minute taking > - blue sheets > 2. status of 8152bis docs (algs > and > struct > ) > - check on errata > - other outstanding issues > - request reviewers > 3. status of x509 doc (here > ) > - outstanding issues? > - request reviewers > 4. status of suit-hash-sig > > - request reviews > 5. status of webauthn draft(s) > - draft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms > > - draft-jones-webauthn-cose-secp256k1 > > - request combined draft > 6. Next Meeting > > > We hope to meet you there! > > Best regards, > - Matthew and Ivaylo > COSE Working Group Chairs > > > --00000000000088c4c00581ec9bb5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

This is simply a reminder that we are having our interim today 15.0= 2.2019. You can find all the relevant information in my previous email cite= d=C2=A0below.=C2=A0

For taki= ng minutes we will be using etherpad [1].

Best regards,
- Matthew and Ivaylo
COSE= Working Group Chairs

[1]:=C2= =A0https:/= /etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/cose?useMonospaceFont=3Dtrue


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 7:= 53 PM ivaylo petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io> wrote:
Dear WG,

As you know, we will be having our interim meeting this Friday = (2019-02-15) from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC.

Here is = the connection details:

C= OSE Virtual Interim (2019-02-15)
<= /div>
Friday, February 15, 2019
7= :00 pm=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00)=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 1 hr
JOIN WEBEX MEETING
Meeting number (access code): 643 246 056
=
Meeting password:= WJQnT22h

JOIN BY PHONE
<= /div>
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)= =C2=A0
<= /div>
Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported): tel:%2= B1-650-479-3208,,*01*643246056%23%23*01*

= Here is the proposed agenda:
=
1. administrivia
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Note Well
<= font color=3D"#0b5394" face=3D"verdana, sans-serif">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - agenda bashing
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - charter overview
=C2=A0= =C2=A0 - minute taking
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - b= lue sheets
2. status of 8152bis docs (algs and struct)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- check on errata
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- other outstanding issues
<= font color=3D"#0b5394" face=3D"verdana, sans-serif">=C2=A0 =C2=A0- request reviewers=C2=A0
<= /div>
3. status of x509 doc (here)
=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- outstanding issues?
<= /div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- request reviewers
4. statu= s of suit-hash-sig
<= /div>
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 - request reviews
5. status of = webauthn draft(s)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - request= combined draft
6. Next Meeting

We hope to meet you there!
=
Best regards,
- Matthew and Ivaylo
COSE Working Group Chairs=


<= /div> --00000000000088c4c00581ec9bb5-- From nobody Fri Feb 15 22:27:33 2019 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 080EC127AC2; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:27:31 -0800 (PST) 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 U9TiKWn90HrW; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:27:29 -0800 (PST) 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 774541277D2; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:27:20 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: CC: 'cose' Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:27:19 -0800 Message-ID: <00ea01d4c5c0$ac81d6d0$05858470$@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: AdTFufOkitC6NeAaSRiPIqRYIbOPDw== Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-00 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: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:27:31 -0000 Russ, I don't remember when the last time I looked at this was, but since I have been reviewing the version over in lamps, look at all of those things and apply here. I tried not to duplicating them below. Please copy forward as is reasonable. 1. I am trying to create an example message for you, but I am having problems with getting a running implementation based on the ID in CFRG. One of my biggest issues is that the test vectors are completely insufficient if there are problems, and apparently I have a problem. 2. The following statement seems a bit weird: "The hash-based signature algorithm supports five values for this parameter: h=5; h=10; h=15; h=20; and h=25". Would it not be better to say it along the lines of "Currently there are five values registered for this parameter:..." 3. You do not seem to have consistency between section 4 and the IANA considerations wrt 'HSS-LMS' vs 'HASHSIG-HSS-LMS' 4. I find it very interesting that in this document you do not have the extra hash step that is present in the lamps document. Specifically this always uses the "direct" signature algorithm that I proposed over there. Jim From nobody Fri Feb 22 21:00:19 2019 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 160A7130F03; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:59:53 -0800 (PST) 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 gKg30Pk70HW0; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:59:50 -0800 (PST) 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 1582E130EE8; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:59:49 -0800 (PST) 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 x1N4xd72019444; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 05:59:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (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 445wx743sFz1Bp8; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 05:59:39 +0100 (CET) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 572590776.633619-15478b9ee2b3a7f7ffb62e3339313eb3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 05:59:38 +0100 Message-Id: To: ace@ietf.org, core , cose , cbor@ietf.org, t2trg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF104: 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: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 04:59:53 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA for IETF104. Remember that there is still quite some potential for changes. cose/teep and lpwan/t2trg are some annoying conflicts that meet the eye. I also don't like that I'll have to miss the cacao BOF (vs. core), dinrg/suit, coinrg/git. All times are CET (Central European Time) =3D=3D UTC +1 hours. Note = that there is no daylight saving time in effect at the time in Europe (this starts on the Sunday *after* IETF). (You can get pure UTC times on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten SATURDAY/SUNDAY, March 23/24. 2019 -- Hackathon (including various interops) (Grand Hilton Ballroom) -- Sun 1700-1900 Welcome Reception - Congress Hall 1/2 -- Sun 1800-2000 Hot RFC Lightning Talks - Congress Hall 3 MONDAY, March 25, 2019 0900-1100 Morning Session I Congress H 3 ART dispatch Dispatch WG - Joint with ARTAREA Congress H 2 INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Congress H 1 IRTF pearg Privacy Enhancements and Assessments = Proposed Research Group Karlin 3 RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Congress H 1 INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Congress H 2 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Karlin 1/2 TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Karlin 1/2 INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Congress H 2 IRTF irtfopen IRTF Open Meeting Congress H 3 SEC secdispatch Security Dispatch WG 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Congress H 2 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Congress H 3 IAB smart Stopping Malware and Researching Threats Karlin 1/2 INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Berlin/Brussels IRTF qirg Quantum Internet Proposed Research Group Karlin 3 RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG Athens/Barcel. SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG Congress H 1 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG TUESDAY, March 26, 2019 0900-1100 Morning Session I Karlin 3 ART uta Using TLS in Applications WG - 1000 - = 1100 Karlin 1/2 INT homenet Home Networking WG Congress H 3 RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Berlin/Brussels SEC *** cose CBOR Object Signing and Encryption WG Grand Hilton BR SEC *** teep Trusted Execution Environment = Provisioning WG Congress H 2 TSV quic QUIC WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Berlin/Brussels INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Congress H 1 IRTF qirg Quantum Internet Proposed Research Group Athens/Barcel. RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Congress H 3 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Berlin/Brussels ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Congress H 3 OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG Congress H 2 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG Grand Hilton BR TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Congress H 1 INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG Congress H 3 IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing Congress H 2 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG WEDNESDAY, March 27, 2019 0900-1100 Morning Session I Karlin 1/2 IRTF*** dinrg Decentralized Internet Infrastructure Congress H 3 RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Berlin/Brussels RTG rift Routing In Fat Trees WG Grand Hilton BR SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = WG Congress H 2 TSV quic QUIC WG 1120-1320 Morning Session II Grand Hilton BR IRTF cfrg Crypto Forum - 12:20 - 13:20 Grand Hilton BR SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG - 11:20 - 12:20 1500-1700 Afternoon Session I Grand Hilton BR OPS wgtlgo Technology Deep Dive - Modern Router = Architecture BOF THURSDAY, March 28, 2019 0900-1030 Morning Session I Karlin 3 ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG Congress H 3 IRTF panrg Path Aware Networking RG Athens/Barcel. RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG Congress H 1 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG Berlin/Brussels SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1050-1220 Morning Session II Congress H 3 GEN git GitHub Integration and Tooling WG Congress H 1 IRTF coinrg Computing in the Network Congress H 2 IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Congress H 1 INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Grand Hilton BR SEC *** rats Remote ATtestation ProcedureS BOF 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Grand Hilton BR ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Karlin 1/2 INT *** paw Predictable and Available Wireless BOF Berlin/Brussels OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Congress H 2 SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting FRIDAY, March 29, 2019 0900-1030 Morning Session I Congress H 3 ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Grand Hilton BR INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Berlin/Brussels SEC cacao Collaborative Automated Course of Action = Operations for Cyber Security BOF 1050-1250 Morning Session II Athens/Barcel. INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG Congress H 1 IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Grand Hilton BR SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Karlin 1/2 TSV taps Transport Services WG From nobody Fri Feb 22 21:04:29 2019 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 17360130E30; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 21:04:06 -0800 (PST) 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 npd5YiMhh7wp; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 21:04:05 -0800 (PST) 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 B2517128B33; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 21:04:04 -0800 (PST) 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 x1N53tVK024751; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 06:04:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (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 445x2310zXz1Bp8; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 06:03:55 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 06:03:54 +0100 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 572591032.521777-d2548c66452750c48513149efff3b1fa Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2379FFCD-B44C-4BF7-986C-81BA83189575@tzi.org> References: To: ace , core , cose , cbor@ietf.org, t2trg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [T2TRG] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF104: 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: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 05:04:07 -0000 On Feb 23, 2019, at 05:59, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 >=20 > Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA > for IETF104. Remember that there is still quite some potential for > changes. And how could I forget: FRIDAY, March 22, 2019 =E2=80=94 Fri 0930=E2=80=931800 T2TRG Work Meeting =E2=80=94 Room TBD Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Mon Feb 25 07:37:11 2019 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 8E28E12D4EB for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:37:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.167 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, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ShnKbtRZjGNk for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x12f.google.com (mail-it1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (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 4A91A130EF9 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:37:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id l66so13937302itg.3 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:37:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:to:from:subject:openpgp:autocrypt:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R/ltEUGYe2ltf+puWU5BOxCuJgUaa9Zg+gMFCs88FCY=; b=R5h2rcoS/H5HA85K/KKDtoh3FbOuHuuqmwzZf7XBvdoj9x4B9Lz5ChvC89S40bzjmk yi7JVZzLq+dImH4ddCl9t40yzWnCvFexm/iIizZEuv9pr7MSmSizz29JmiG5pWrn6uhj blHN+mScwzgU+I6mil3L/tmOK5xd6jZj/QNx55Mxvh/E8FrHQWFbzGmIkUPmOZLhO6EV lIwKIZZ+7yIoAuDNmGmCyTlYIWrrITmzILapE3jf4b26yJhb3dQ4FRXDS/hkxFfQgnsW osdB/EMZw+vwLt8kaC2dNrV8jJnLGmWl/HyMWc9pS3N9acCQdztx1x3Zo/KpO3o0Fkgz Wvfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:to:from:subject:openpgp:autocrypt :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R/ltEUGYe2ltf+puWU5BOxCuJgUaa9Zg+gMFCs88FCY=; b=l3m1nzhZ2lzQIrpJQad3uLCQwOd9cBw+Eb2r842w1URmsY2WqALnqr0xbWDmHhHVUO HgjH5R+X7ozUR67yf8laAOmU8EKoOB7taZxV02HEqy777d8ktyy4k4AknlG8WZ0DDJkX sg1e6X649bx0CVPjZWjRbYwc1wqtxo347vjrxBYsNc4/eJjSf1bcJEn02A3HtY+x97Tf g+b1KuOHByGBsJyiKNRuqBjmgVGb61TBqVWHboxocpaQhvJ+aFoNC6Dhr3dIAsiLz3KF rcLghkqbq79Vn0LiICIfhJUsW7PAlf5ZiMPloaR7wGylH4xQG4UIFbQxjhgRSB/5TnKW 0VzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubIx7ZSWaqqS+a6nPzbQE5+CIcfVrqQ78/2ir07x/nmJvDRgd84 9Vhuh9AEK83uxMAlnI3YKwXcCo61jFo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iavu3+fr9p2fPtFW/480+3FWCMwvJ4bz2blISDZSikyb0zy7rN/7fuOKa3r0Dmf3/gxCey6Fw== X-Received: by 2002:a02:8c04:: with SMTP id l4mr10459059jak.126.1551109025886; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:37:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mmiller-44677.local ([2601:280:4f80:2b7f:9e0:672a:88d:4ebc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r15sm3843305ioc.75.2019.02.25.07.37.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:37:05 -0800 (PST) Sender: Matthew Miller To: cose From: "Matthew A. Miller" Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFJoAooBCADQmEtpbpY/4wTeKgZIuyG7HkxIFgiUeqOvtiBKj/pCA73d7Q5hCvQdGcKJ 6uZsYz3Il9oKoKFxVt90iEXspbE39g6ek19e6RsB4j0Q10l4QvH+EqeD760gs0H2yf/eYj9i uk9/VY6axdQlPsmid1zoQgCNjSM7X4/K26WGMs03sbXJpKdoonelzIlJSNfzi0q546iplo72 D2cCm9BriMkQvcGnsm4B9eBIBn3GKmVx1tsmPNeNTyun2DvaLnrYxbA0Ivo1DzZReds9NZ25 uROI/+b+lcg9/kmHzhK+q8NMQCFWmqpS/lZRKxVBSijKGpGr5h8VLVf5iURHtwG+B/QxABEB AAG0M01hdHRoZXcgQS4gTWlsbGVyIDxsaW51eHdvbGYraWV0ZkBvdXRlci1wbGFuZXMubmV0 PokBPQQTAQoAJwUCWKsJ1AIbAwUJC8ckMQULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAAKCRDs 9HJOEJ4Fu1iBCADAcW06d/7GTlBjTlYuMGgjzDBoWeQ9/zxgMnSrgNb6yO7wHzE65CeFs6OI 6LQ4A34CNM3hhcWDIzlqrV25fVyy7qCh6bCNMs1pOT63+Od4kcjHtUnGGTONT5fXSGY7mCtl XJFjb3TwyLUZXQCifhCIaUdF/4SVoGk96W9ssbDKN+5xq7B7gyVkwB0WM67zxt/kC6TPcXXL 5m7jsNRpRmFQqOlIF+HrQAcSr1lKRWgetb1VHfXCgcmDaTKn1QC7s0Ml+27dc0SoIkBI8cnv inJ4oFYWrvnTlOvv+v8AFXZnPrxZ/JYvnVD/y5PX7v08Z8RFXm1AmVxIWjXPI6TySkGvuQEN BFJoAooBCADA/ruHwYlQ7pdjJY6twkZcMmedkQNL6r5tNBeQkwVrvitUjHTKKipjxB2kEkUZ oxPgMI1h7/enDrVlMMMqq6RIJ86H+yx13zNIZNBlJfmVHgHj7TT8spa6A/qIccdiIRNsFVvl vFxpH8sTjVbHfPYexbdOR5kHpZWTzYxNyVLXMK5jen0B4K+vjbgFJAvsoLfzLZ5Bz3kb6dpu xUNzqhDyhk5/UPaCIFvZWBtiRKmkqPwEq8G2aMJq5Z4Sr8CRkpoMB25rxCPS8R+ByiHxpq+U 8mKuqPVg1LJzcA7hHmms8aBN6lxSlbyKnzEg8AWgld+6+xlJXu5U/fqDAClTj5mfABEBAAGJ ATwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQQx11iN7JBpDWvMmODs9HJOEJ4FuwUCWm+kiwUJC8tagQAKCRDs9HJO EJ4Fu40cB/9xyEnuQegivmL6OBVG5HvUAaXGUxtWiWdLm3NrduL0h7rctF060xQTekNRCjbl xZ1w/unPDBEEIMPYbF8i7IwJZoRLTG1B1MjI04AUU60G0IU6uw0ST6IsC7oYGvhDNJApbVBb j9u9x+kzaktCftl3qdpSKgRh9McIyZgevuFBdo80RDtX8niktUA3xsfJWBD1yJA33UNSzqOe 54wFRbsM2+4erREPMD659h2lACPCXjPW/6ucnv0/cdPF8V2JNMCT0yPJVCSUfFLTrtyYtiRI 6S52cI4eEOZIXCQp30TA4E27O2mMLOYzlKA5P5T+Icf4gz8e/puNUKIBDlY6KF7p Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:37:04 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Recording from Virtual Interim 2019-02-15 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: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:37:09 -0000

A recording of the virtual interim is available here: < https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=5bed4c9e1dad64b94e647a693486381c >

A draft of the minutes will be posted soon.

Thank you,

- Ivaylo and Matthew

COSE Chairs

From nobody Mon Feb 25 16:15:53 2019 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 07846130F01 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:15:52 -0800 (PST) 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=ham 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 ZF7MyfLbCObT for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x135.google.com (mail-it1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::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 41758130EEF for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x135.google.com with SMTP id i2so1419293ite.5 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:15:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:to:from:subject:openpgp:autocrypt:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version; bh=OWMQxdFlkVGyamHEUxki+6tPi648zlo8KrIAbPE1AAY=; b=LT6AZFl0STgksXCbKbwNDSNm8rqKLFaz/zbXb5mk5uJljgvZocDDbGGZ+uzc6Lw+Yp j7j8ZnhpWt+XrYnKclZBslDx6J2j0bT3QbagqGFwFLbwUW5nq53607tNRo/Qq4CrY5NS x9ywpLihfN5GQSNjVXDsfgNyjc1/EAfsSrtM3Bqw58DsO2xwIDfXu1AT0bxPh0QRqTgD Oz8Lsh1Blr8pi1KizOylzahZFBE6odv7QrufhQCbAtaRTBiOnjUwZuJh2IT/8Vi2ZERw 9OMSL1L5rzoPjOw8ZZqVD8zOXKHpOjBasYjzr7bOQ+S8IfjITQXkPS9SrEp+lHgXu8QY h8pA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:to:from:subject:openpgp:autocrypt :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version; bh=OWMQxdFlkVGyamHEUxki+6tPi648zlo8KrIAbPE1AAY=; b=ZciRTPYkvrkzacORymp4fywKfaLd2aVz68WO2fY9k4l6Yz+EuHletp1/WIqQ5BpWCA Xxcphj0zOI2FgGXcIfbRXstqiDklDPv/br3MzBJZljNHsIskQgMzH5J9oesx/vsn2vny zMrcmQRagkmdbaJIV9we9+mYOvTVK7n+Eixd8PPawMDGTtt8sZF1DWf6k0E8wDCtwzmQ L5chxrzxfu3MnKqw1uW6JLFtNEFWwemCZKJpE4sU9b1hFivo726mMKrQVPQmispgQMHa 4aUSCLnLi9Gnb13mLnJja5CBEYYkNCJQg5Xm9nHCLu94B1xHDZ1Be+T3ZDzmf+d3bQ+2 nr0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZsCiXxPR83DERCQTicoVgj1Wl18Um3hZoZoJKdr5l8tbriW+4D 9U3nlhmXZ3SQ9IoRBffEkln+GxjHzFE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbIqibV4Yswme879Wu0YDxCQWgs8Fa8+IYc0Crt4dXSTUEIjGCktnYf/nk/JShxQ8kaekFrsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:660c:12c2:: with SMTP id k2mr867158itd.17.1551140149002; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:15:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mmiller-44677.local ([2601:280:4f80:2b7f:9e0:672a:88d:4ebc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a16sm5895220itc.27.2019.02.25.16.15.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:15:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: Matthew Miller To: cose From: "Matthew A. Miller" Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFJoAooBCADQmEtpbpY/4wTeKgZIuyG7HkxIFgiUeqOvtiBKj/pCA73d7Q5hCvQdGcKJ 6uZsYz3Il9oKoKFxVt90iEXspbE39g6ek19e6RsB4j0Q10l4QvH+EqeD760gs0H2yf/eYj9i uk9/VY6axdQlPsmid1zoQgCNjSM7X4/K26WGMs03sbXJpKdoonelzIlJSNfzi0q546iplo72 D2cCm9BriMkQvcGnsm4B9eBIBn3GKmVx1tsmPNeNTyun2DvaLnrYxbA0Ivo1DzZReds9NZ25 uROI/+b+lcg9/kmHzhK+q8NMQCFWmqpS/lZRKxVBSijKGpGr5h8VLVf5iURHtwG+B/QxABEB AAG0M01hdHRoZXcgQS4gTWlsbGVyIDxsaW51eHdvbGYraWV0ZkBvdXRlci1wbGFuZXMubmV0 PokBPQQTAQoAJwUCWKsJ1AIbAwUJC8ckMQULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAAKCRDs 9HJOEJ4Fu1iBCADAcW06d/7GTlBjTlYuMGgjzDBoWeQ9/zxgMnSrgNb6yO7wHzE65CeFs6OI 6LQ4A34CNM3hhcWDIzlqrV25fVyy7qCh6bCNMs1pOT63+Od4kcjHtUnGGTONT5fXSGY7mCtl XJFjb3TwyLUZXQCifhCIaUdF/4SVoGk96W9ssbDKN+5xq7B7gyVkwB0WM67zxt/kC6TPcXXL 5m7jsNRpRmFQqOlIF+HrQAcSr1lKRWgetb1VHfXCgcmDaTKn1QC7s0Ml+27dc0SoIkBI8cnv inJ4oFYWrvnTlOvv+v8AFXZnPrxZ/JYvnVD/y5PX7v08Z8RFXm1AmVxIWjXPI6TySkGvuQEN BFJoAooBCADA/ruHwYlQ7pdjJY6twkZcMmedkQNL6r5tNBeQkwVrvitUjHTKKipjxB2kEkUZ oxPgMI1h7/enDrVlMMMqq6RIJ86H+yx13zNIZNBlJfmVHgHj7TT8spa6A/qIccdiIRNsFVvl vFxpH8sTjVbHfPYexbdOR5kHpZWTzYxNyVLXMK5jen0B4K+vjbgFJAvsoLfzLZ5Bz3kb6dpu xUNzqhDyhk5/UPaCIFvZWBtiRKmkqPwEq8G2aMJq5Z4Sr8CRkpoMB25rxCPS8R+ByiHxpq+U 8mKuqPVg1LJzcA7hHmms8aBN6lxSlbyKnzEg8AWgld+6+xlJXu5U/fqDAClTj5mfABEBAAGJ ATwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQQx11iN7JBpDWvMmODs9HJOEJ4FuwUCWm+kiwUJC8tagQAKCRDs9HJO EJ4Fu40cB/9xyEnuQegivmL6OBVG5HvUAaXGUxtWiWdLm3NrduL0h7rctF060xQTekNRCjbl xZ1w/unPDBEEIMPYbF8i7IwJZoRLTG1B1MjI04AUU60G0IU6uw0ST6IsC7oYGvhDNJApbVBb j9u9x+kzaktCftl3qdpSKgRh9McIyZgevuFBdo80RDtX8niktUA3xsfJWBD1yJA33UNSzqOe 54wFRbsM2+4erREPMD659h2lACPCXjPW/6ucnv0/cdPF8V2JNMCT0yPJVCSUfFLTrtyYtiRI 6S52cI4eEOZIXCQp30TA4E27O2mMLOYzlKA5P5T+Icf4gz8e/puNUKIBDlY6KF7p Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:15:47 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Sk235IkUVe8oiP2aE89DvMwzxV3ZwRRGI" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:15:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Sk235IkUVe8oiP2aE89DvMwzxV3ZwRRGI Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="5KZsSr2ZhamQgBU6ymObZPrPLMiabZXRQ"; protected-headers="v1" From: "Matthew A. Miller" To: cose Message-ID: Subject: Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document --5KZsSr2ZhamQgBU6ymObZPrPLMiabZXRQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them from draft-ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to stabilize more quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group agrees with separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that consists of Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, please indicate why not. - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE Chairs --5KZsSr2ZhamQgBU6ymObZPrPLMiabZXRQ-- --Sk235IkUVe8oiP2aE89DvMwzxV3ZwRRGI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEMddYjeyQaQ1rzJjg7PRyThCeBbsFAlx0hTMACgkQ7PRyThCe BbuXiQf/VS3lPM/Up4GfJhYQVrXZjIWNmelalwoqwLvs+dIO9mBGRCbLFbUk6MX+ yymWKfaoGtt2FKGvPLR6G4gP9eVTDxOkxP84O56wXIoC8bxLOaNy1FkVZNFnuuGH VkuirZLOtpeTObrfoD9g8kVtv+2wA4mTnJV9PcQs7wudG7QE4nCRtT9iNTUboc0K R7SIfMlzuiBJvbf9tjp2JlqRefQ8dvPdqkmszNLv8ZkLTHaWrqNy0Dezi4zwn9IY S5PhzVlpM2a3x//LgsdHjas5NSnafp4QHV+amvHJKe6eeI2vfdzvn/FE2ofMvNCO cqgZx0krHGrxCBuUdcscoNCQiMAAww== =QhJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sk235IkUVe8oiP2aE89DvMwzxV3ZwRRGI-- From nobody Mon Feb 25 16:27:05 2019 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 6D48412D84C for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:27:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 KSLEgxxL2fi9 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM06-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr640100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.64.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2754212E036 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:27:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=K9/ekJccL30/brO0t4sfjAQJKX7HJ+9gNiWdKGoboPg=; b=dPvwe49a7I4OJROM/H4+7F/+pflbfEEIj7hbDNbLBKQbJJ+QiLj78HOiMafpIpcUrji2Zvf17mm40UnjuuSG07aqV8eznoYvY+NfNl8p2iY20+R5rXkcE7lFf843p6xACv999cATmS5wyzel/lrDTn8yxCG6X0bdJ0072YB39bo= Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.19.158) by BL0PR00MB0385.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.20.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1699.0; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:26:58 +0000 Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d4e5:d345:a6ac:ab9b]) by BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d4e5:d345:a6ac:ab9b%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1697.000; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:26:58 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: "Matthew A. Miller" , cose Thread-Topic: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document Thread-Index: AQHUzWh1vFF1uzJeKU+h7V2wYDrmTKXxORYA Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:26:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Owner=mbj@microsoft.com; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SetDate=2019-02-26T00:26:56.9906482Z; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Name=General; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ActionId=2840cdfc-c62b-4d0e-835c-5f5a6fd9e246; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Extended_MSFT_Method=Automatic x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:1:48fd:c7b5:1d51:1bfd] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d47319ce-2028-4c3c-68b7-08d69b811e95 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BL0PR00MB0385; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR00MB0385: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 096029FF66 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(97736004)(22452003)(476003)(7696005)(105586002)(10090500001)(53936002)(25786009)(81156014)(76176011)(9686003)(7736002)(6346003)(110136005)(55016002)(229853002)(81166006)(11346002)(10290500003)(106356001)(486006)(8936002)(305945005)(446003)(46003)(6436002)(74316002)(14454004)(6506007)(256004)(8676002)(86362001)(68736007)(72206003)(6246003)(186003)(5660300002)(86612001)(33656002)(99286004)(4744005)(102836004)(478600001)(53546011)(316002)(8990500004)(6116002)(52536013)(71190400001)(71200400001)(2906002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR00MB0385; H:BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: eRzFY0qv3F2teyIORpWKDml11ld2jnkeB3wgnf7XXeQmJP/PFKS+DOWatkIL+isMyHWWr+RFFZnx8IUkyKHEAjisV/nCyu73fKDYhg0p0ZbeEqiP22fUGGYJaGZnFrhFrAuc2Fpn5vlLm2DldrQrmlLDd6O0ezEu2aIZAqPzc8RfdWXVHYvpYTG4v5SuBXPWFn0zdk9w0Pr1jQvdWmgCE26/ucRxEGIJgK9folb+QPavwYOZDsLeBCmWPvNZChosAYbJVPXikoyT1FrRfpqb93UhJ/UnL83tFs/ZRIbAq4dnm6YCCPvW3OHaFyfNk+2Emq3OcV6jd4uOvxmd7tAfdntMRvfbimRUpPid8GOynmbhk3Ujih8mZyuHgbaOvtXqcv/b/pH7/pNlAgej1DlAu2LwhtsXQLdz2YvjorMCEJg= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d47319ce-2028-4c3c-68b7-08d69b811e95 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Feb 2019 00:26:58.3849 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR00MB0385 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:27:03 -0000 RmluZSB3aXRoIG1lLg0KDQoJCQkJLS0gTWlrZQ0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0t LQ0KRnJvbTogQ09TRSA8Y29zZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPiBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgTWF0dGhl dyBBLiBNaWxsZXINClNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgRmVicnVhcnkgMjUsIDIwMTkgNDoxNiBQTQ0KVG86 IGNvc2UgPGNvc2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbQ09TRV0gQ2FsbCBmb3IgQ29uc2Vuc3Vz OiBTdGFuZGFsb25lIEhhc2ggQWxnb3JpdGhtcyBEb2N1bWVudA0KDQpUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2VzIHN0 YXJ0cyBhIGNhbGwgZm9yIGNvbnNlbnN1cyB0byBzZXBhcmF0ZSB0aGUgQ09TRSBoYXNoIGFsZ29y aXRobXMgaW50byBhIHNlcGFyYXRlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBlbmRpbmcgb24gMjAxOC0wMy0xMC4NCg0K SW4gdGhlIHZpcnR1YWwgaW50ZXJpbSBvbiAwMi0xNSwgaXQgd2FzIHByb3Bvc2VkIHRvIHNlcGFy YXRlIHRoZW0gZnJvbSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWNvc2UteDUwOSwgdG8gYWxsb3cgdGhlIGhhc2ggYWxn b3JpdGhtIHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbnMgdG8gc3RhYmlsaXplIG1vcmUgcXVpY2tseSB0aGFuIHRoZSBy ZXN0IG9mIHRoZSBYLjUwOSBkcmFmdC4gIElmIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGFncmVlcyB3aXRo IHNlcGFyYXRpbmcgdGhlIGFsZ29yaXRobXMsIHRoZW4gYSBkb2N1bWVudCB3aWxsIGJlIHB1Ymxp c2hlZCB0aGF0IGNvbnNpc3RzIG9mIFNlY3Rpb24gNCAoSGFzaCBBbGdvcml0aG0gSWRlbnRpZmll cnMpIGFuZCBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMyAoQ09TRSBBbGdvcml0aG0gUmVnaXN0cnkpIGZyb20gZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1jb3NlLXg1MDkuDQoNClBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHdpdGggd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91 IHN1cHBvcnQgc2VwYXJhdGluZyB0aGUgaGFzaCBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGludG8gYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBk b2N1bWVudC4gIElmIHlvdSBkbyBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydCB0aGlzLCBwbGVhc2UgaW5kaWNhdGUgd2h5 IG5vdC4NCg0KDQotIEl2YXlsbyBhbmQgTWF0dGhldw0KQ09TRSBDaGFpcnMNCg0K From nobody Mon Feb 25 16:39:12 2019 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 8F52A130F00 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:39:10 -0800 (PST) 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 TOPjvN_nF7VI for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:39:08 -0800 (PST) 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 2BE4212D84D for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:39:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:39:02 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'cose' References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:38:58 -0800 Message-ID: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@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: AQGJvehPFa3lptSU7zVphEh/rKmRBaaHWqoQ Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:39:11 -0000 A version of what this document would look like can be found here = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM > To: cose > Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document >=20 > This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash > algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >=20 > In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them from = draft- > ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to stabilize = more > quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group agrees = with > separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that = consists of > Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm > Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >=20 > Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash > algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, = please > indicate why not. >=20 >=20 > - Ivaylo and Matthew > COSE Chairs From nobody Mon Feb 25 18:40:48 2019 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 8CB59130E62 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 wsNidXkwFzUj for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (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 5FF4F130DEF for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id v10so13215592qtp.8 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OV2tKpPlv+vB1VM5DRDK84YClRwrS5a+afiRPjpAnRw=; b=ZiOincPKrNAKbV39nbVCNLc/tUKraou07l1wxVU0AsuV2QnEH0RZtSK9+Xp+KTTIwt w2EvGbfKV2z1iyz0gwgU12gzUQvgEHZZL/7kxz3wPE3bgaM/LGerM2wv5tTmsRvcHZT0 6hulxkhd3pc2I4RsKVUq8euzg+cbPIClB5Iz5BIs7hHAP7z+d2U2LSZHtp0lBTgc0KcN pvDT9aZd/tpJNTlm/1T3JOtRnZdMpb5G7rbX/ph2ah0lC7J8wuri8swLmsDGjD7Aw+ci l0sYDqsGlgpJTWbodA25SsVGzuoi3G3lUnnm4cJOpnP7MW99+6GkKtDmz5m9pPdqqeRQ 9WIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OV2tKpPlv+vB1VM5DRDK84YClRwrS5a+afiRPjpAnRw=; b=tD2y4MUbmvZKPVuyMa6aQ3qT+3IB+2/iT9F3JfLnW2jllmOtId/6/4AaJqgtShTqe4 IvIb0SU1hscyp19yh7QruvOXgFAvH0hfTbBgoBYD7ilOvQzdWAShtXDWjd73kxVYgEAE a0RLoDVt1ll4NrCy3ty9W+JyXbrwiRuJ47xSZT1C6+YH29CLNaiRn+lEGF5o2cjYB/C0 ioyw6TAbNj2A2Zjdn3/CKMIv/B06QNUPHozwdK84GcQ0621/3q3RPCqji+b34gxU0O5e 8qJ+jhe1hA5Fp2UFAoPQU4FVhR5rOl/ZkHSr10srRU7n+XtBM95ZJnCYn6+jMFe/1wkK uBwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubNX6lQhfUzsn7x+T1qS066+zMQif2Q42lK5bzTPIKbBvAI8C7C 99Xqf4AR0nwSS2mZaCLvqJ8NEEqw X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaJOkRvseA9ppnxX4DolUPCg9TOuIkaKLSFsHJQFPo7ZTzav9jP5U5TywyiDi2OG2jzsV0uXA== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:94b3:: with SMTP id j48mr16661243qvj.189.1551148843316; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.111.222.210] (209-6-124-146.s3472.c3-0.arl-cbr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcncustomer.com. [209.6.124.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 14sm6446115qkf.23.2019.02.25.18.40.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15E216) In-Reply-To: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:40:41 -0500 Cc: cose Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <07095339-BC9B-44BB-B99C-39280847BAD5@gmail.com> References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 02:40:47 -0000 I support this as I believe it spurred from some messages from me to Jim. T= hank you for starting the work. Best regards, Kathleen=20 Sent from my mobile device > On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: >=20 > A version of what this document would look like can be found here https://= tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM >> To: cose >> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document >>=20 >> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash >> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >>=20 >> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them from dr= aft- >> ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to stabilize mo= re >> quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group agrees wi= th >> separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that consist= s of >> Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm >> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >>=20 >> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash >> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, please >> indicate why not. >>=20 >>=20 >> - Ivaylo and Matthew >> COSE Chairs >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Mon Feb 25 22:28:29 2019 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 5271F130E79 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 22:28:28 -0800 (PST) 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] 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 Twut73Z3Rm55 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 22:28:26 -0800 (PST) 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 B868F130E78 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 22:28:25 -0800 (PST) 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 x1Q6SGMo026643 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (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 447pm05MxQz1Bp8; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:16 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:15 +0100 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 572855293.782782-d73dc29be43755e2288f36ca94da8528 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <15A32D45-81B0-448D-B49A-27BF66B564F3@tzi.org> References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> To: cose X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:28:28 -0000 +1 for split out. I=E2=80=99m reiterating my point that we want to have some older items = in the registry (not necessarily in this particular document). E.g., = SHA-1. So we would need to find a balance with the sentence "Algorithms = that do not meet the security requirements of the community and the messages structures should not be registered.=E2=80=9D in Section 16.11 of RFC 8152. We do have a = =E2=80=9Cdeprecated=E2=80=9D value for the =E2=80=9Crecommended" = column=E2=80=A6 Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > On Feb 26, 2019, at 01:38, Jim Schaad wrote: >=20 > A version of what this document would look like can be found here = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM >> To: cose >> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document >>=20 >> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash >> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >>=20 >> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them = from draft- >> ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to = stabilize more >> quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group = agrees with >> separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that = consists of >> Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE = Algorithm >> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >>=20 >> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash >> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, = please >> indicate why not. >>=20 >>=20 >> - Ivaylo and Matthew >> COSE Chairs >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >=20 From nobody Tue Feb 26 07:03:42 2019 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 338F3130EA7 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:03:41 -0800 (PST) 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] 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 LbK8xrv9s3Yq for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:03:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6668130EB2 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:03:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06BD30055E for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:45:20 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yzNy9aTtTvlv for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-108-45-137-105.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.137.105]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D036300250; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:45:19 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:03:35 -0500 Cc: cose Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:03:41 -0000 Jim: It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. The equivalent document for = CMS is draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes. Russ =20 > On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >=20 > A version of what this document would look like can be found here = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM >> To: cose >> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document >>=20 >> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash >> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >>=20 >> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them = from draft- >> ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to = stabilize more >> quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group = agrees with >> separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that = consists of >> Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE = Algorithm >> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >>=20 >> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash >> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, = please >> indicate why not. >>=20 >>=20 >> - Ivaylo and Matthew >> COSE Chairs >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Tue Feb 26 19:42:23 2019 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 D1CDE130DC0 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:42:21 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 e4QdtPJrY1To for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from p3plsmtpa06-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.106]) (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 214E9130DDA for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.186.0.102] ([167.160.116.45]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id yq6sggbJPgjOXyq6sg7xIy; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 20:42:18 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Laurence Lundblade In-Reply-To: <15A32D45-81B0-448D-B49A-27BF66B564F3@tzi.org> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:42:17 -0800 Cc: cose Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6415C729-A8D8-471B-9CC2-17F712AB800B@island-resort.com> References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> <15A32D45-81B0-448D-B49A-27BF66B564F3@tzi.org> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfLh59O43HYVtCZW2u8XJM5k2y9ZhGIhD9p8L1j+qFVPKbqy71ro/GlQ1oHAypgSNcPyF7XV2WOq+sBp/rqm67PIiMskq3UfTcV/QPdIrXvKuTjcTkTNn MhBF8iYEUzZTQD5QmznyJlOYFniLjFWFV57mwC5nZrAuijsqW+iWsoq4N+ok6dOLp+V3ZZgcQFILGQ== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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, 27 Feb 2019 03:42:22 -0000 +1=20 LL > On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:28 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > +1 for split out. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m reiterating my point that we want to have some older items = in the registry (not necessarily in this particular document). E.g., = SHA-1. So we would need to find a balance with the sentence "Algorithms = that do not meet the security requirements of > the community and the messages structures should not be > registered.=E2=80=9D in Section 16.11 of RFC 8152. We do have a = =E2=80=9Cdeprecated=E2=80=9D value for the =E2=80=9Crecommended" = column=E2=80=A6 >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 >=20 >> On Feb 26, 2019, at 01:38, Jim Schaad wrote: >>=20 >> A version of what this document would look like can be found here = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 >>=20 >> Jim >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM >>> To: cose >>> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document >>>=20 >>> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash >>> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >>>=20 >>> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them = from draft- >>> ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to = stabilize more >>> quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group = agrees with >>> separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that = consists of >>> Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE = Algorithm >>> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >>>=20 >>> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash >>> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, = please >>> indicate why not. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> - Ivaylo and Matthew >>> COSE Chairs >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> COSE mailing list >> COSE@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Wed Feb 27 12:44:51 2019 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 61A4D131162 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:44:48 -0800 (PST) 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 yhnyitleeoqw for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:44:45 -0800 (PST) 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 136CB131182 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:44:37 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Russ Housley' CC: 'cose' References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:44:36 -0800 Message-ID: <02b101d4cedd$41e77890$c5b669b0$@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: AQGJvehPFa3lptSU7zVphEh/rKmRBQLcNKsXAfejzTGmY5gHEA== Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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, 27 Feb 2019 20:44:50 -0000 I am not sure that I completely agree with that. First adding SHAKE other than as a hash function would mean that this is not a standalone hash algorithm document. Second, I am not sure at this point of all of the different varieties and locations where SHAKE should be added. Hash Functions: Do we have just the two versions or do we have a truncated 64-bit version as well. Not sure about where the variant that had a small b would fall in here, but for now it might just be ignored. Signature Algorithms: At this point I don't know if there would need to be any RSA versions or not. Not sure what to say about DH versions. ECDSA maybe makes some sense. Message Authentication Algorithms: Do we put in a KMAC here or not? Key Derivation Functions: Do we just do HMAC with a KMAC drop in here or does NIST have a different recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE functions? We should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing this as SHAKE already has length extension attacks solved. Key Agreement Functions: Since you need to have a combined key agreement algorithm and KDF for COSE, how many of these are we going to define. Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms: I sorta hope that this can be avoided for now, but I know that there are some AEAD algorithms which are built using Keccak as an underlying primitive and I am not personally ready to try and figure out how it works, but it is something that might need to be discussed here (and in CFRG). Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm assignments done for the SUIT developers, I am not sure that doing this work in this document makes sense. I will also note that the CMS work in LAMPS and CURDLE ignored the issues of new KDFs w/ SHAKE entirely so that maybe groundbreaking work here. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:04 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: cose > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms > Document > > Jim: > > It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. The equivalent document for > CMS is draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes. > > Russ > > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > A version of what this document would look like can be found here > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 > > > > Jim > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller > >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM > >> To: cose > >> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms > >> Document > >> > >> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash > >> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. > >> > >> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them > >> from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations > >> to stabilize more quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the > >> working group agrees with separating the algorithms, then a document > >> will be published that consists of Section 4 (Hash Algorithm > >> Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm > >> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. > >> > >> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash > >> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, > >> please indicate why not. > >> > >> > >> - Ivaylo and Matthew > >> COSE Chairs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > COSE mailing list > > COSE@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Wed Feb 27 12:54:30 2019 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 8BDAA130E77 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:54:28 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 gU2hx5dn2s8K for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D4B131123 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:54:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DBE300A3D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:36:08 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Aaw3FZC64rVw for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 343A2300464; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:36:06 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <02b101d4cedd$41e77890$c5b669b0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:54:22 -0500 Cc: cose Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2DF76F27-B5A0-4768-9AB7-B758477A6B3B@vigilsec.com> References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> <02b101d4cedd$41e77890$c5b669b0$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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, 27 Feb 2019 20:54:29 -0000 Jim: I as suggesting that SHAKE be added as a hash function. Sure, it might = be added to other documents as well, but I was not suggesting that. Russ > On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >=20 > I am not sure that I completely agree with that. =20 >=20 > First adding SHAKE other than as a hash function would mean that this = is not > a standalone hash algorithm document. Second, I am not sure at this = point > of all of the different varieties and locations where SHAKE should be = added. >=20 > Hash Functions: Do we have just the two versions or do we have a = truncated > 64-bit version as well. Not sure about where the variant that had a = small b > would fall in here, but for now it might just be ignored. >=20 > Signature Algorithms: At this point I don't know if there would need = to be > any RSA versions or not. Not sure what to say about DH versions. = ECDSA > maybe makes some sense. >=20 > Message Authentication Algorithms: Do we put in a KMAC here or not? >=20 > Key Derivation Functions: Do we just do HMAC with a KMAC drop in here = or > does NIST have a different recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE = functions? > We should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing this as = SHAKE > already has length extension attacks solved. >=20 > Key Agreement Functions: Since you need to have a combined key = agreement > algorithm and KDF for COSE, how many of these are we going to define. >=20 > Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms: I sorta hope that this can be = avoided > for now, but I know that there are some AEAD algorithms which are = built > using Keccak as an underlying primitive and I am not personally ready = to try > and figure out how it works, but it is something that might need to be > discussed here (and in CFRG). >=20 > Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm assignments done = for the > SUIT developers, I am not sure that doing this work in this document = makes > sense. I will also note that the CMS work in LAMPS and CURDLE ignored = the > issues of new KDFs w/ SHAKE entirely so that maybe groundbreaking work = here. >=20 >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Russ Housley >> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:04 AM >> To: Jim Schaad >> Cc: cose >> Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms >> Document >>=20 >> Jim: >>=20 >> It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. The equivalent document = for >> CMS is draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes. >>=20 >> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >>>=20 >>> A version of what this document would look like can be found here >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 >>>=20 >>> Jim >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller >>>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM >>>> To: cose >>>> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms >>>> Document >>>>=20 >>>> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash >>>> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >>>>=20 >>>> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them >>>> from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm = registrations >>>> to stabilize more quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the >>>> working group agrees with separating the algorithms, then a = document >>>> will be published that consists of Section 4 (Hash Algorithm >>>> Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm >>>> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >>>>=20 >>>> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash >>>> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, >>>> please indicate why not. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> - Ivaylo and Matthew >>>> COSE Chairs >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> COSE mailing list >>> COSE@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >=20 >=20 From nobody Wed Feb 27 18:09:59 2019 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 6D31B130ED1 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:09:58 -0800 (PST) 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 lxYPRMS2oalv for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:09:55 -0800 (PST) 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 9C996130ECF for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:09:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:09:27 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Russ Housley' CC: 'cose' References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> <02b101d4cedd$41e77890$c5b669b0$@augustcellars.com> <2DF76F27-B5A0-4768-9AB7-B758477A6B3B@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <2DF76F27-B5A0-4768-9AB7-B758477A6B3B@vigilsec.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:09:25 -0800 Message-ID: <02bb01d4cf0a$a2dd9440$e898bcc0$@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: AQGJvehPFa3lptSU7zVphEh/rKmRBQLcNKsXAfejzTEBi+ZPIwJpPdpOpkQp0UA= Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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, 28 Feb 2019 02:09:59 -0000 I have much less of a problem with just doing the hashes. So which SHAKE hashes do you think we should be defining? To match SHA-2 it would be SHAKE-128/64, SHAKE-128 and SHA-256. I don't know if there is a similar change in processing if you look at the difference between 32 and 64 bit processors which can be found with the SHA-2 implementations. This lead to putting in the SHA-512/256 registration that I put in the current draft. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 12:54 PM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: cose > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms > Document > > Jim: > > I as suggesting that SHAKE be added as a hash function. Sure, it might be > added to other documents as well, but I was not suggesting that. > > Russ > > > > On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > I am not sure that I completely agree with that. > > > > First adding SHAKE other than as a hash function would mean that this > > is not a standalone hash algorithm document. Second, I am not sure at > > this point of all of the different varieties and locations where SHAKE should > be added. > > > > Hash Functions: Do we have just the two versions or do we have a > > truncated 64-bit version as well. Not sure about where the variant > > that had a small b would fall in here, but for now it might just be ignored. > > > > Signature Algorithms: At this point I don't know if there would need > > to be any RSA versions or not. Not sure what to say about DH > > versions. ECDSA maybe makes some sense. > > > > Message Authentication Algorithms: Do we put in a KMAC here or not? > > > > Key Derivation Functions: Do we just do HMAC with a KMAC drop in here > > or does NIST have a different recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE > functions? > > We should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing this as > > SHAKE already has length extension attacks solved. > > > > Key Agreement Functions: Since you need to have a combined key > > agreement algorithm and KDF for COSE, how many of these are we going > to define. > > > > Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms: I sorta hope that this can be > > avoided for now, but I know that there are some AEAD algorithms which > > are built using Keccak as an underlying primitive and I am not > > personally ready to try and figure out how it works, but it is > > something that might need to be discussed here (and in CFRG). > > > > Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm assignments done > > for the SUIT developers, I am not sure that doing this work in this > > document makes sense. I will also note that the CMS work in LAMPS and > > CURDLE ignored the issues of new KDFs w/ SHAKE entirely so that maybe > groundbreaking work here. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Russ Housley > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:04 AM > >> To: Jim Schaad > >> Cc: cose > >> Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms > >> Document > >> > >> Jim: > >> > >> It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. The equivalent document > >> for CMS is draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes. > >> > >> Russ > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad > wrote: > >>> > >>> A version of what this document would look like can be found here > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 > >>> > >>> Jim > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller > >>>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM > >>>> To: cose > >>>> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms > >>>> Document > >>>> > >>>> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash > >>>> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. > >>>> > >>>> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them > >>>> from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm > >>>> registrations to stabilize more quickly than the rest of the X.509 > >>>> draft. If the working group agrees with separating the algorithms, > >>>> then a document will be published that consists of Section 4 (Hash > >>>> Algorithm > >>>> Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm > >>>> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. > >>>> > >>>> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash > >>>> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, > >>>> please indicate why not. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Ivaylo and Matthew > >>>> COSE Chairs > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> COSE mailing list > >>> COSE@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > > > > From nobody Thu Feb 28 08:52:15 2019 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 3CDFF130EE7 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:52:13 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ackl-io.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 1xk3C7xBId2l for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (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 E6994130E9F for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id e74so9841855wmg.3 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:52:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E45BWceewmqvDtMKlRqvNVOWMGes9ORc1xYRAzF24Nw=; b=FHP0BFX40v0k1t/IAj/nIaYj9mxZ4XlgOHZgxmwIfSuu1ysJNCOR91J0HFUe4+Yy4S AjBDFgpndZ4EfwZlzD1n3UghYIJu0I8ga9YidjFoBUDyeF117lJnmJXzbLsfILTdK6t+ 4NRLKfGoN1iKhHlDuV/+lzoTimnnGxSjlSvIZ4RiMvIUU11JFjKOrri+l2bxKNQAbMuw QY72TnQq8E4MAbbrON2jv+qFYDif1fqqe+AMaHjaVAAPrLkwAgchQ7gB9XkgJB3/spl9 04JKuCylcoudMS4VmAEdHpMwuNFPOty3GN1UEq9tGVUe2ZQcE/UUlTe2IwYbmJIsTtdZ /74A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E45BWceewmqvDtMKlRqvNVOWMGes9ORc1xYRAzF24Nw=; b=Uj4gpAJza9yLh/t6qVK0QVKTK/fJXsWCTv1HKd/ltJOtVTvgHPIhJ0xMwfFQDIf4MA ntEtOx+GzFds7iboItju+OI2Sc5hs/17ad5WcMF+g4PnWYfBVCSTzj0t2cWR7YyZSn0c PMpCMBpelvcScWvd/oeI2xmK3a0TPdFH19gpZfy4VYXByBhYQggoGlfd/Lqqmph1VPNU na8DqaeyVx2BLwd/pi1UenaLROY/h1R8hjSgfA0koYTe71YpAXgObddJnhW+4ojp5zAM q8kltXZ2OiwBKOk2jCxE4rkjy3Atm6F5yNSJFzEtIukn+2HuVFhiDDWbiDhZ2LwtBNZM znpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZvBRIraOHXh/eEQgSGN+zl44DhIoqgh/1Ppjk1ZWtd5gt66cbY 4gK+YMMCB8Lao/b0hXextqWNrfEniWNh3l0tVbYVvaEfuS4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaFkR6sVfSzveITBKtPjoEqIHUnLxlp8hXKLnNzmbTJ+UDJLQ3jjS5cqsOX5yBVz/15NHNb4WUd9HkogVxIDck= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8088:: with SMTP id b130mr406187wmd.96.1551372728712; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:52:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ivaylo petrov Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:51:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068d16e0582f71c4e" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many countersignatures 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, 28 Feb 2019 16:52:13 -0000 --00000000000068d16e0582f71c4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, During the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about distinguishing one counter signature from array of counter signatures. Currently it is not possible to achieve that based on top level tag alone, one needs to dig down one level. While this is not a big problem, it could be something that can be improved. On the negative side, existing implementations of that, if any, might have to be modified. Please respond whether or not you think we should make a change, that would facilitate this distinction. Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs --00000000000068d16e0582f71c4e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

During the virtual interim on 02-15 a quest= ion was raised about distinguishing one counter signature from array of cou= nter signatures. Currently it is not possible to achieve that based on top = level tag alone, one needs to dig down one level. While this is not a big p= roblem, it could be something that can be improved. On the negative side, e= xisting implementations of that, if any, might have to be modified.

Please respond wh= ether or not you think we should make a change, that would facilitate this = distinction.

Best regards,

= -=C2=A0Matthew and=C2= =A0Ivaylo
COSE Chairs
--00000000000068d16e0582f71c4e-- From nobody Thu Feb 28 08:59:52 2019 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 27C93130E82 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:59:50 -0800 (PST) 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, 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=ackl-io.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 Vf2wGqy_pyEa for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (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 12D711200B3 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id n2so22767277wrw.8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:59:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/eYgGLbLMYtQvtCjkuluLEbuG7wXe+X1uOyfyNcY/uQ=; b=HWLDnF90XUstaHwdbgIMcjz6yhvID3gkH+l7pewEn90EvlquGNjJlkIK2Au9JPJc0U oMNR7Rk7p97pkEXLytMtUfYdmRHpiu+tMiWEiQgmPY6xSa0U1l9NnITDdUtT6Plh3kWK WF4h9NdZ41kimdgfxpXRFX3Gj0T+fVx/XAn3Qqfmq7H1Sohd/Qsc3Jh1mnjG7CbTg4fq SU8gBoYlzdUYhbqOrSgge3K2bW0T7osTmXSuDUi4ZzsKnUk/E+FB3H/ToKTYoJp8+htn gSWcIrGAK9O6/MEX1revRyNNTztCNHS/R0ywljd0sAn8RRUoEY9osCu3q6rUIBxG/SEG 4xhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/eYgGLbLMYtQvtCjkuluLEbuG7wXe+X1uOyfyNcY/uQ=; b=ClkA7cHc3jYYaJduJ2xiBsfITa9dxt0iqmmGFFeRo9xFFL7fLkqWMjgaZ54f+U4fpo vnSsi2BROe+45tjR7Yzj/2gF44q551wsPPd3d6VgtJ9tsxhKac0koEEOpcFSj4YLD9Cx SDIyxVT2W1eZxLRIRd6kO7D2CMRfWJBljZuO0R2nW4trtj3DXjbk4DxxnOBM2/jANO8w bwCzuE/1eXvUGgPwB+6VKw1NOFxiDjKNckB7kpPLjarVgRR9XqeG20t+atBo+Zci5Yyi MZmwUqYMzULoQDbZZF2Dut/wbP9Y6GopDcU1NcBhELNoePKjwUNfJL2ieVLNYm8XLjSM 0/ZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwehA2MX1D7UatpyusAnSGheylawrPuYD8waM5oI6EMKoUt8Vu Ez3vY1lMYxv7vXR6UyKI+P68HVIFy95bkiAHDGg6TyBlTbM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwbIZNvhzHdpW+AQiNoZZX0Ll4lGZj7HPpWjKLv3gn08a5XIzwqOqULZ3lvA5cP3nx61ujxovWsaVmWdBuZ96k= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4887:: with SMTP id g7mr244978wrq.51.1551373186022; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:59:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ivaylo petrov Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:59:20 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aad2240582f737a2" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Minutes virtual interim 02-15 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, 28 Feb 2019 16:59:50 -0000 --000000000000aad2240582f737a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, The Minutes from the 02-15 virtual interim are on the Datatracker [1]. Please review them and send a message to the Chairs in case you need to add some corrections. Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2019-cose-01/materials/minutes-interim-2019-cose-01-201902151900 --000000000000aad2240582f737a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

The Minut= es from the 02-15 virtual interim are on the Datatracker [1].
<= div class=3D"gmail_default">
Please review them and send a message to the = Chairs in case you need to add some corrections.

Best regards,

-=C2=A0Matthe= w and=C2=A0Ivaylo
COSE Chairs
<= br>
[1]:=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2019-cose-01/materials/= minutes-interim-2019-cose-01-201902151900
--000000000000aad2240582f737a2-- From nobody Thu Feb 28 13:16:38 2019 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 69151130FD7 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:16:36 -0800 (PST) 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 bJ402mIANRmB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:16:35 -0800 (PST) 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 B0950127AC2 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:16:34 -0800 (PST) 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 x1SLGPB2009290; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:16:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (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 449QMs3tFMz1Bp8; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:16:25 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:16:24 +0100 Cc: cose X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 573081382.871982-d2a800e543cfbf44f067ab78778934d2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5929558A-0C12-44FC-9008-8830DEB5F0F3@tzi.org> References: To: ivaylo petrov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many countersignatures 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, 28 Feb 2019 21:16:36 -0000 Hi Ivaylo, On Feb 28, 2019, at 17:51, ivaylo petrov wrote: >=20 > distinguishing one counter signature from array of counter signatures. = Currently it is not possible to achieve that based on top level tag = alone, one needs to dig down one level. I missed the first half of the interim, sorry. After skimming the minutes, I=E2=80=99m still not sure why exposing this = information right in the top level tag would be a good thing. Is that = written up somewhere? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Thu Feb 28 13:30:38 2019 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 3F083130FE4 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:30:36 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 M_yONgTsCaPY for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:30:34 -0800 (PST) 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 6EB11130FD6 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (50.252.25.182) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:30:26 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'ivaylo petrov' , 'cose' References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:30:22 -0800 Message-ID: <035501d4cfac$d120f6b0$7362e410$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0356_01D4CF69.C2FF6460" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIyJVCoOvJJE6f1Tii3TVKs6RG4/KU7DZ5g Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [50.252.25.182] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many countersignatures 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, 28 Feb 2019 21:30:36 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_0356_01D4CF69.C2FF6460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A touch more explicit detail. =20 A counter signature is the same as a signer structure. Thus it is a = CBOR array with three elements (protected attributes, unprotected = attributes, signature). =20 The attribute for holding a counter signature currently has the CDDL = description of Counter Signature or array of Counter Signatures. =20 I am completely agnostic about whether or not this change should be = made. I ran across it while getting my counter signature code working = correctly and the check is not difficult, but it does increase the code = size while reducing the message size by one byte. =20 Jim =20 From: COSE On Behalf Of ivaylo petrov Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:52 AM To: cose Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many = countersignatures =20 Dear all, =20 During the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about = distinguishing one counter signature from array of counter signatures. = Currently it is not possible to achieve that based on top level tag = alone, one needs to dig down one level. While this is not a big problem, = it could be something that can be improved. On the negative side, = existing implementations of that, if any, might have to be modified. =20 Please respond whether or not you think we should make a change, that = would facilitate this distinction. =20 Best regards, =20 - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs ------=_NextPart_000_0356_01D4CF69.C2FF6460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A touch more explicit detail.

 

A counter = signature is the same as a signer structure.=C2=A0 Thus it is a CBOR = array with three elements (protected attributes, unprotected attributes, = signature).

 

The attribute for holding a counter signature = currently has the CDDL description of Counter Signature or array of = Counter Signatures.

 

I am = completely agnostic about whether or not this change should be = made.=C2=A0 I ran across it while getting my counter signature code = working correctly and the check is not difficult, but it does increase = the code size while reducing the message size by one = byte.

 

Jim

=

 

From: COSE = <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ivaylo = petrov
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:52 AM
To: = cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: = Distinguishing one vs many = countersignatures

 

Dear = all,

 

During the = virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about distinguishing one = counter signature from array of counter signatures. Currently it is not = possible to achieve that based on top level tag alone, one needs to dig = down one level. While this is not a big problem, it could be something = that can be improved. On the negative side, existing implementations of = that, if any, might have to be = modified.

 

Please respond = whether or not you think we should make a change, that would facilitate = this distinction.

 

Best = regards,

 

- Matthew = and Ivaylo

COSE = Chairs

------=_NextPart_000_0356_01D4CF69.C2FF6460-- From nobody Thu Feb 28 13:32:30 2019 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 0BAA913100D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:32:29 -0800 (PST) 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 5JF7QNsNPmrM for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:32:27 -0800 (PST) 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 43A95130FFB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:32:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (50.252.25.182) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:32:21 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Carsten Bormann' , 'ivaylo petrov' CC: 'cose' References: <5929558A-0C12-44FC-9008-8830DEB5F0F3@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <5929558A-0C12-44FC-9008-8830DEB5F0F3@tzi.org> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:32:16 -0800 Message-ID: <035a01d4cfad$159dc520$40d94f60$@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: AQIyJVCoOvJJE6f1Tii3TVKs6RG4/AF0mr3rpS9qgZA= Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [50.252.25.182] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many countersignatures 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, 28 Feb 2019 21:32:29 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:16 PM > To: ivaylo petrov > Cc: cose > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many > countersignatures >=20 > Hi Ivaylo, >=20 > On Feb 28, 2019, at 17:51, ivaylo petrov wrote: > > > > distinguishing one counter signature from array of counter = signatures. > Currently it is not possible to achieve that based on top level tag = alone, one > needs to dig down one level. >=20 > I missed the first half of the interim, sorry. > After skimming the minutes, I=E2=80=99m still not sure why exposing = this information > right in the top level tag would be a good thing. Is that written up > somewhere? The term tag is really my fault as I tend to swap tag and type in = general. Replace tag with type and you will be better off. Jim >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Thu Feb 28 14:49:55 2019 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 DFA3813106D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:49:53 -0800 (PST) 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 OlxuReM2bhw5 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:49:52 -0800 (PST) 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 C4047131054 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:49:51 -0800 (PST) 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 x1SMndJt020305; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:49:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (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 449SRQ6m1mz1Bp8; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:49:38 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <035501d4cfac$d120f6b0$7362e410$@augustcellars.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:49:37 +0100 Cc: ivaylo petrov , cose X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 573086975.883799-fecf0bb0f8078a1e2e03da56e625a66e Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <265432C6-6B67-4D6F-B955-A8A9A5407A47@tzi.org> References: <035501d4cfac$d120f6b0$7362e410$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Distinguishing one vs many countersignatures 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, 28 Feb 2019 22:49:54 -0000 On Feb 28, 2019, at 22:30, Jim Schaad wrote: >=20 > A counter signature is the same as a signer structure. Thus it is a = CBOR array with three elements (protected attributes, unprotected = attributes, signature). > =20 > The attribute for holding a counter signature currently has the CDDL = description of Counter Signature or array of Counter Signatures. Got it. A choice between a single signer structure (which happens to be an = array(*)) and an array of signer structures is indeed confusing. I=E2=80=99= d go with always having an array of signer structures, even if it has = only one element (the one array that is the signer structure). Cost: 1 = byte (0x81). Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten (*) I=E2=80=99m probably the only one to call such an array with fixed = positional semantics a =E2=80=9Crecord=E2=80=9D, since =E2=80=9Cstructure=E2= =80=9D is for maps=E2=80=A6 Erlang influence. From nobody Thu Feb 28 16:48:41 2019 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 1D6F113111D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:48:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 NFDvuUyG-UwQ for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A111310F8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3C1300AB8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:30:15 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id IHIXO53heGNQ for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CC06300438; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:30:12 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ADA3D385-14E0-4476-ABE5-63FBD35BFD4E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:48:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <02bb01d4cf0a$a2dd9440$e898bcc0$@augustcellars.com> Cc: cose To: Jim Schaad References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> <02b101d4cedd$41e77890$c5b669b0$@augustcellars.com> <2DF76F27-B5A0-4768-9AB7-B758477A6B3B@vigilsec.com> <02bb01d4cf0a$a2dd9440$e898bcc0$@augustcellars.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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, 01 Mar 2019 00:48:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_ADA3D385-14E0-4476-ABE5-63FBD35BFD4E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jim: Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash functions are = defined by NIST [1]: id-shake128 id-shake256 id-shake128-len id-shake256-len The first two have no parameters, and the second two have an output = length parameter. These are the ones that should probably be included in a COSE-friendly = manner. Russ [1] = https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Computer-Security-Objects-Register/Algorith= m-Registration = > On Feb 27, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >=20 > I have much less of a problem with just doing the hashes. >=20 > So which SHAKE hashes do you think we should be defining? To match = SHA-2 it > would be SHAKE-128/64, SHAKE-128 and SHA-256.=20 >=20 > I don't know if there is a similar change in processing if you look at = the > difference between 32 and 64 bit processors which can be found with = the > SHA-2 implementations. This lead to putting in the SHA-512/256 = registration > that I put in the current draft. >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Russ Housley >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 12:54 PM >> To: Jim Schaad >> Cc: cose >> Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms >> Document >>=20 >> Jim: >>=20 >> I as suggesting that SHAKE be added as a hash function. Sure, it = might be >> added to other documents as well, but I was not suggesting that. >>=20 >> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >>>=20 >>> I am not sure that I completely agree with that. >>>=20 >>> First adding SHAKE other than as a hash function would mean that = this >>> is not a standalone hash algorithm document. Second, I am not sure = at >>> this point of all of the different varieties and locations where = SHAKE > should >> be added. >>>=20 >>> Hash Functions: Do we have just the two versions or do we have a >>> truncated 64-bit version as well. Not sure about where the variant >>> that had a small b would fall in here, but for now it might just be > ignored. >>>=20 >>> Signature Algorithms: At this point I don't know if there would = need >>> to be any RSA versions or not. Not sure what to say about DH >>> versions. ECDSA maybe makes some sense. >>>=20 >>> Message Authentication Algorithms: Do we put in a KMAC here or not? >>>=20 >>> Key Derivation Functions: Do we just do HMAC with a KMAC drop in = here >>> or does NIST have a different recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE >> functions? >>> We should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing this as >>> SHAKE already has length extension attacks solved. >>>=20 >>> Key Agreement Functions: Since you need to have a combined key >>> agreement algorithm and KDF for COSE, how many of these are we going >> to define. >>>=20 >>> Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms: I sorta hope that this can be >>> avoided for now, but I know that there are some AEAD algorithms = which >>> are built using Keccak as an underlying primitive and I am not >>> personally ready to try and figure out how it works, but it is >>> something that might need to be discussed here (and in CFRG). >>>=20 >>> Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm assignments done >>> for the SUIT developers, I am not sure that doing this work in this >>> document makes sense. I will also note that the CMS work in LAMPS = and >>> CURDLE ignored the issues of new KDFs w/ SHAKE entirely so that = maybe >> groundbreaking work here. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Jim >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Russ Housley >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:04 AM >>>> To: Jim Schaad >>>> Cc: cose >>>> Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms >>>> Document >>>>=20 >>>> Jim: >>>>=20 >>>> It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. The equivalent = document >>>> for CMS is draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes. >>>>=20 >>>> Russ >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad >> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> A version of what this document would look like can be found here >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Jim >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM >>>>>> To: cose >>>>>> Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms >>>>>> Document >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE = hash >>>>>> algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them >>>>>> from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm >>>>>> registrations to stabilize more quickly than the rest of the = X.509 >>>>>> draft. If the working group agrees with separating the = algorithms, >>>>>> then a document will be published that consists of Section 4 = (Hash >>>>>> Algorithm >>>>>> Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm >>>>>> Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Please respond with whether or not you support separating the = hash >>>>>> algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, >>>>>> please indicate why not. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> - Ivaylo and Matthew >>>>>> COSE Chairs >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> COSE mailing list >>>>> COSE@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >>>=20 >>>=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose --Apple-Mail=_ADA3D385-14E0-4476-ABE5-63FBD35BFD4E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Jim:

Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash = functions are defined by NIST [1]:

    =  id-shake128

     id-shake256

    =  id-shake128-len

     id-shake256-len

The first two have no parameters, and = the second two have an output length parameter.

These are the ones that should probably = be included in a COSE-friendly manner.

Russ




On Feb = 27, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

I = have much less of a problem with just doing the hashes.

So which SHAKE hashes do you think we should be defining? =  To match SHA-2 it
would be SHAKE-128/64, SHAKE-128 = and SHA-256.

I don't know if there is a = similar change in processing if you look at the
difference = between 32 and 64 bit processors which can be found with the
SHA-2 implementations.  This lead to putting in the = SHA-512/256 registration
that I put in the current = draft.

Jim


-----Original = Message-----
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Sent: Wednesday, = February 27, 2019 12:54 PM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash = Algorithms
Document

Jim:

I as suggesting that SHAKE be added as a hash = function.  Sure, it might be
added to other documents = as well, but I was not suggesting that.

Russ


On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

I am not sure that I completely agree with that.

First adding SHAKE other than as a hash = function would mean that this
is not a standalone hash = algorithm document.  Second, I am not sure at
this = point of all of the different varieties and locations where SHAKE
should
be added.

Hash Functions:  Do we have just the two = versions or do we have a
truncated 64-bit version as well. =  Not sure about where the variant
that had a small b = would fall in here, but for now it might just be
ignored.

Signature Algorithms:  At this point I don't know if = there would need
to be any RSA versions or not.  Not = sure what to say about DH
versions.  ECDSA maybe = makes some sense.

Message Authentication = Algorithms:  Do we put in a KMAC here or not?

Key Derivation Functions:  Do we just do HMAC with a = KMAC drop in here
or does NIST have a different = recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE
functions?
We should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing = this as
SHAKE already has length extension attacks = solved.

Key Agreement Functions: Since you = need to have a combined key
agreement algorithm and KDF = for COSE, how many of these are we going
to = define.

Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms:  I sorta hope that = this can be
avoided for now, but I know that there are = some AEAD algorithms which
are built using Keccak as an = underlying primitive and I am not
personally ready to try = and figure out how it works, but it is
something that = might need to be discussed here (and in CFRG).

Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm = assignments done
for the SUIT developers, I am not sure = that doing this work in this
document makes sense.  I = will also note that the CMS work in LAMPS and
CURDLE = ignored the issues of new KDFs w/ SHAKE entirely so that maybe
groundbreaking work here.


Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: = Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Sent: Tuesday, = February 26, 2019 7:04 AM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash = Algorithms
Document

Jim:

It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. =  The equivalent document
for CMS is = draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes.

Russ


On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
wrote:

A version = of what this document would look like can be found here
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01<= br class=3D"">
Jim


-----Original = Message-----
From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On = Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller
Sent: Monday, February 25, = 2019 4:16 PM
To: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash = Algorithms
Document

This = messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash
algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10.

In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was = proposed to separate them
from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to = allow the hash algorithm
registrations to stabilize more = quickly than the rest of the X.509
draft.  If the = working group agrees with separating the algorithms,
then = a document will be published that consists of Section 4 (Hash
Algorithm
Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE = Algorithm
Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509.

Please respond with whether or not you support = separating the hash
algorithms into a separate document. =  If you do not support this,
please indicate why = not.


- Ivaylo and Matthew
COSE Chairs


_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose




_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

= --Apple-Mail=_ADA3D385-14E0-4476-ABE5-63FBD35BFD4E-- From nobody Thu Feb 28 17:13:43 2019 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 BC245126D00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:13:42 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 jAxN3F5YdXVi for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:13:39 -0800 (PST) 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 D234B1279E6 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:13:31 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Russ Housley' CC: 'cose' References: <012301d4cd6b$aab6f9e0$0024eda0$@augustcellars.com> <240C1AF3-4442-4D3C-B867-65C39E00F533@vigilsec.com> <02b101d4cedd$41e77890$c5b669b0$@augustcellars.com> <2DF76F27-B5A0-4768-9AB7-B758477A6B3B@vigilsec.com> <02bb01d4cf0a$a2dd9440$e898bcc0$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:13:27 -0800 Message-ID: <036501d4cfcb$fb53f080$f1fbd180$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0366_01D4CF88.ED321010" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQGJvehPFa3lptSU7zVphEh/rKmRBQLcNKsXAfejzTEBi+ZPIwJpPdpOAe2c+rACJvzleKYlLsOA Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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, 01 Mar 2019 01:13:43 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_0366_01D4CF88.ED321010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit COSE does not support parameters so the later two cannot be supported by themselves. Rather a new code point would be assigned for a fixed parameter set. Thus we would need to decide what lengths should be supported for the latter two options. Jim From: Russ Housley Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:48 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: cose Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document Jim: Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash functions are defined by NIST [1]: id-shake128 id-shake256 id-shake128-len id-shake256-len The first two have no parameters, and the second two have an output length parameter. These are the ones that should probably be included in a COSE-friendly manner. Russ [1] https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Computer-Security-Objects-Register/Algorithm- Registration On Feb 27, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Jim Schaad > wrote: I have much less of a problem with just doing the hashes. So which SHAKE hashes do you think we should be defining? To match SHA-2 it would be SHAKE-128/64, SHAKE-128 and SHA-256. I don't know if there is a similar change in processing if you look at the difference between 32 and 64 bit processors which can be found with the SHA-2 implementations. This lead to putting in the SHA-512/256 registration that I put in the current draft. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 12:54 PM To: Jim Schaad > Cc: cose > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document Jim: I as suggesting that SHAKE be added as a hash function. Sure, it might be added to other documents as well, but I was not suggesting that. Russ On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Jim Schaad > wrote: I am not sure that I completely agree with that. First adding SHAKE other than as a hash function would mean that this is not a standalone hash algorithm document. Second, I am not sure at this point of all of the different varieties and locations where SHAKE should be added. Hash Functions: Do we have just the two versions or do we have a truncated 64-bit version as well. Not sure about where the variant that had a small b would fall in here, but for now it might just be ignored. Signature Algorithms: At this point I don't know if there would need to be any RSA versions or not. Not sure what to say about DH versions. ECDSA maybe makes some sense. Message Authentication Algorithms: Do we put in a KMAC here or not? Key Derivation Functions: Do we just do HMAC with a KMAC drop in here or does NIST have a different recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE functions? We should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing this as SHAKE already has length extension attacks solved. Key Agreement Functions: Since you need to have a combined key agreement algorithm and KDF for COSE, how many of these are we going to define. Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms: I sorta hope that this can be avoided for now, but I know that there are some AEAD algorithms which are built using Keccak as an underlying primitive and I am not personally ready to try and figure out how it works, but it is something that might need to be discussed here (and in CFRG). Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm assignments done for the SUIT developers, I am not sure that doing this work in this document makes sense. I will also note that the CMS work in LAMPS and CURDLE ignored the issues of new KDFs w/ SHAKE entirely so that maybe groundbreaking work here. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:04 AM To: Jim Schaad > Cc: cose > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document Jim: It would probably be easy to add SHAKE now. The equivalent document for CMS is draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes. Russ On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad > wrote: A version of what this document would look like can be found here https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01 Jim -----Original Message----- From: COSE > On Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 PM To: cose > Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document This messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE hash algorithms into a separate document, ending on 2018-03-10. In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to separate them from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash algorithm registrations to stabilize more quickly than the rest of the X.509 draft. If the working group agrees with separating the algorithms, then a document will be published that consists of Section 4 (Hash Algorithm Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE Algorithm Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509. Please respond with whether or not you support separating the hash algorithms into a separate document. If you do not support this, please indicate why not. - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE Chairs _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose ------=_NextPart_000_0366_01D4CF88.ED321010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

COSE does = not support parameters so the later two cannot be supported by = themselves.  Rather a new code point would be assigned for a fixed = parameter set.  Thus we would need to decide what lengths should be = supported for the latter two options.

 

Jim

 

 

From: Russ = Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Sent: Thursday, February = 28, 2019 4:48 PM
To: Jim Schaad = <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: cose = <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: = Standalone Hash Algorithms Document

 

Jim:

 

Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash = functions are defined by NIST [1]:

 

    =  id-shake128

 

    =  id-shake256

 

    =  id-shake128-len

 

    =  id-shake256-len

 

The first two have no parameters, and the second two = have an output length parameter.

 

These are the ones that should probably be included in = a COSE-friendly manner.

 

Russ

 

 

 



On Feb 27, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> = wrote:

 

I = have much less of a problem with just doing the hashes.

So which = SHAKE hashes do you think we should be defining?  To match SHA-2 = it
would be SHAKE-128/64, SHAKE-128 and SHA-256.

I don't know = if there is a similar change in processing if you look at = the
difference between 32 and 64 bit processors which can be found = with the
SHA-2 implementations.  This lead to putting in the = SHA-512/256 registration
that I put in the current = draft.

Jim



-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley = <housley@vigilsec.com>
Sent= : Wednesday, February 27, 2019 12:54 PM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
= Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: = [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash = Algorithms
Document

Jim:

I as suggesting that SHAKE be = added as a hash function.  Sure, it might be
added to other = documents as well, but I was not suggesting = that.

Russ



On = Feb 27, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> = wrote:

I am not sure that I completely agree with = that.

First adding SHAKE other than as a hash function would mean = that this
is not a standalone hash algorithm document.  Second, = I am not sure at
this point of all of the different varieties and = locations where SHAKE

should

be = added.


Hash Functions:  Do we have just the two = versions or do we have a
truncated 64-bit version as well.  Not = sure about where the variant
that had a small b would fall in here, = but for now it might just be

ignored.


Signature Algorithms:  At this point I don't = know if there would need
to be any RSA versions or not.  Not = sure what to say about DH
versions.  ECDSA maybe makes some = sense.

Message Authentication Algorithms:  Do we put in a = KMAC here or not?

Key Derivation Functions:  Do we just do = HMAC with a KMAC drop in here
or does NIST have a different = recommended way to do KDF with SHAKE

functions?

We = should definitely be able to get rid of HMAC when doing this as
SHAKE = already has length extension attacks solved.

Key Agreement = Functions: Since you need to have a combined key
agreement algorithm = and KDF for COSE, how many of these are we = going

to = define.


Encryption and Key Wrap algorithms:  I sorta = hope that this can be
avoided for now, but I know that there are some = AEAD algorithms which
are built using Keccak as an underlying = primitive and I am not
personally ready to try and figure out how it = works, but it is
something that might need to be discussed here (and = in CFRG).

Given that the object is to get the hash algorithm = assignments done
for the SUIT developers, I am not sure that doing = this work in this
document makes sense.  I will also note that = the CMS work in LAMPS and
CURDLE ignored the issues of new KDFs w/ = SHAKE entirely so that maybe

groundbreaking work = here.



Jim



-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley = <housley@vigilsec.com>
Sent= : Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:04 AM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
= Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: = [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash = Algorithms
Document

Jim:

It would probably be easy to = add SHAKE now.  The equivalent document
for CMS is = draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes.

Russ



On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>

wrote:


A version of what this document would look like = can be found here
https= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01

Jim
<= br>

-----Original Message-----
From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On = Behalf Of Matthew A. Miller
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:16 = PM
To: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: [COSE] = Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms
Document

This = messages starts a call for consensus to separate the COSE = hash
algorithms into a separate document, ending on = 2018-03-10.

In the virtual interim on 02-15, it was proposed to = separate them
from draft- ietf-cose-x509, to allow the hash = algorithm
registrations to stabilize more quickly than the rest of = the X.509
draft.  If the working group agrees with separating = the algorithms,
then a document will be published that consists of = Section 4 (Hash
Algorithm
Identifiers) and Section 5.3 (COSE = Algorithm
Registry) from draft-ietf-cose-x509.

Please respond = with whether or not you support separating the hash
algorithms into a = separate document.  If you do not support this,
please indicate = why not.


- Ivaylo and Matthew
COSE = Chairs



_______________________________________________=
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/cose

 



_______________________________________________=
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/cose

 

------=_NextPart_000_0366_01D4CF88.ED321010--