From nobody Fri Mar 1 08:06:41 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 186E2130E91 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:06:39 -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 UN3svAz6QFCY for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (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 706E4130E8F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id y15so12778669wma.0 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 08:06:36 -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=ymlK0tpgr+8JY7nNFY8/KQkBUhm3wYpDJtu3jWCcRiU=; b=AP6PGo921jszFQJ3OK30s7rdeiaSzNQgRksGSn2uF3nWAd+vUEivgUXM2PbGV+ETyd 6QX7R0w1taBwGTkzaj97cOPFW1ElZ/ZM9l3tMfz0+kzoXf/g2DYtl22TbOAY0KlpEZ10 UNqUJNYeG6Rgmmu2YbCeA8OWp0o44fPMlDgWW9th3GLpcP66nZ9gYJ023yXXrICvuBo9 b9Zp1RAQ2BaD1PID6PJj0kTQenmV/lKITF9oqElDPjNEv/1ezSrpWuHZOZT0G61LfOPL NE+PflEufI1Ojpptir1LBRKnICTadZOq9hQbv2imfOHfxjV2bkseeFGaRC0GL28HmUsD 7D/A== 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=ymlK0tpgr+8JY7nNFY8/KQkBUhm3wYpDJtu3jWCcRiU=; b=rEF7bMn+Pjd4tS0UpI+VlXmsIdqF0BO3NynPy47BbIGhde5x/qF++PskZChlP+bbok m+kjhVRlYv/i9b5IMkZXpTCZ0pSdaMQ01BcvHI4dk1LluxrUNJGPUtmKuOUgnAsfBedy PbSnBZ45BrGU88YUIwRL1duDSEruyExIUbjJ+R+2iowh+ulZpKQt+tukoB7k60MxexjT s4owaI5yCgRcn4C4vxv5IULfptZDB9AxlCRe8zcOI8WyOnDtIw/rv4WmqDMpo5+R+pZ5 WWwBzRuTGZvdj4a9+ut7nqvhVtTN53g+7OVGDo9o/gQhMUcdAEoxpItRlezSePTpC/2m G7+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZS0cuQ/EeMDFKTBdk++dE0eM7yxInVM21jkCqhnKTG8wEpC3GS u13LClIW4F9UOomFCTuS0H7BBWVgo1aXAqSxvc5wQPokPj4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ibc1pUD+JfBmLop4Z4hjl7DZSnSJKa7ORoEcmHGi0C6xmSrIcnIaaJHxVW6LjDoSvK5UwkEubM/4jzXCSbL56g= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8088:: with SMTP id b130mr3567148wmd.96.1551456394455; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 08:06:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ivaylo petrov Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:06:07 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046c55705830a9793" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1 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 16:06:39 -0000 --00000000000046c55705830a9793 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, During the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about shorter form of counter signature that only has the counter signature (appendix A.2) and infers a number of parameters from other context. Part of the issue is that in Section 4.4 the context string in Sig_stucture is "CounterSignature", whereas in A.2 it is called "CounterSignature0". At the same time possibly it is more appropriate to name it CounterSignature1 considering that it has one counter signature. Please respond whether you agree that CounterSignature1 is a better name than CounterSignature0 and provide any other comments regarding those issues. Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs --00000000000046c55705830a9793 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

Duri= ng the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about=C2=A0
shorter form of counter signature that only has the counter sig= nature (appendix A.2) and infers a number of parameters from other context.= Part of the issue is that in Section 4.4 the context string in Sig_stuctur= e=C2=A0is "CounterSignature", whereas in A.2 it is called "C= ounterSignature0". At the same time possibly it is more appropriate to= name it CounterSignature1 considering that it has one counter signature.

<= font color=3D"#0b5394" face=3D"verdana, sans-serif">Please respond whether = you agree that=C2=A0CounterSignature1 is a better name than=C2=A0CounterSig= nature0 and provide any other comments regarding those issues.
=

Best regards,

-=C2=A0Matthew and=C2=A0Ivaylo
COSE Chairs
--00000000000046c55705830a9793-- From nobody Fri Mar 1 08:07:37 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 65977130E91 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:07:35 -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 OjsilPTtLK4S for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:07:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (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 91BF0130E8C for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:07:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id y15so12782035wma.0 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 08:07:33 -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=s8jzUysIzLJ8uA4dos14JDbI1nT/94L0H4wCRQ6Nlso=; b=SFt2cM2igzWa8Kxx98zs9aFkKvZ1WZEQxLX24hcnG8+R/Dfz+bQN2hLM8Nn3swrN0m 2cVbuTCCkwi6wzz5iKh0TOFfMD0Y8YiRV+IVGe8HOD4c3DWM3ulzYYLkzoVikC96EV1E wkOQWZbmRGH9PH52X/gSgMiVk2GTXlPpgDy9vZZ3dmckRKnHdTcKSRIYtc5ooivu54ub 6S2Bb6qTV9XKfTErJkNaBLaAYGWnGe0YZd07yVAb2oIihGbYpf9kawwDG+WSOHen4Cp2 dPVmNvVxdSF96XCxabaw9i8DzQaus1+cgYhxqqxdUZ14mUND16FnYC4si7v5CsvgOPkg dSpw== 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=s8jzUysIzLJ8uA4dos14JDbI1nT/94L0H4wCRQ6Nlso=; b=lWLEOfhgL2WBjsDEYIihCbmLG8dIOVLK8Dc2CbtL60uzArMEehnTpLnloH0KjjJ2Tt wk2fq/Qv/ttHZepnWhvnLWl+O/Kkb7HuPbsm9zYY5KYYCIpnW0alRl/cOAjkZCrP16Fz eaGfEBa9V9Dn74G9FiWDTuXesXnj2gsOvz6FK39xFveqk/7vgTontumYj6w5MbIihjJ3 7LqkxdHZUmjrC8lPRBNu4PCdcSo/PBjRlEx2oixrfdUoHxpVxbhqo6rVFiNSbafjuUVI Hm6oZ4D+kK3GkYFvXu1aX0alJVwq4WCeAmQT3Q4z6YveteXS5Q9eK8ziEVCjR6EEroYZ Tajg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWAk+Lp/rDlytuROUX/aMqtlMjDu9T601z0zgoiHtfwlp+6oYuu aVosC9NCy8s9wz0RWLP6koHJlK/ljaSOn8Uyk0z25aFzkgU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz/L16YsG0h3Cme32SF6uWGxkcuiUg2oyoWl5oyxm+kG/oC+XguyDMeKNzVUbR6aaJTUvTICiJ5Y9T+1xSkF0A= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a58c:: with SMTP id o134mr3600018wme.79.1551456451414; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 08:07:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ivaylo petrov Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:07:05 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000abe67f05830a9a4a" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: CounterSignature CBOR tag 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 16:07:36 -0000 --000000000000abe67f05830a9a4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, During the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about requesting a CBOR tag for counter signatures, so that they can exist outside of a COSE structure. Currently, there are no specific requests for this. Please respond whether you consider that useful at the present moment or you think we should wait for a use case to come first. Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs --000000000000abe67f05830a9a4a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

During the v= irtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about=C2=A0
requesting a CBOR tag for counter signatures, so that th= ey can exist outside of a COSE structure. Currently, there are no specific = requests for this.

Please respond whether you consider that useful at the = present moment or you think we should wait for a use case to come first.

Best regards,

-=C2=A0Matthew and=C2=A0Ivaylo
COSE Chairs
--000000000000abe67f05830a9a4a-- From nobody Fri Mar 1 08:17:14 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 D1B17130E69 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:17:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=myidemia.onmicrosoft.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 rdse2Wq17hB1 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:17:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com (mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com [91.207.212.183]) (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 10285124C04 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0136512.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x21G0jox026619; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:17:07 GMT Received: from eur04-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3eur04lp2050.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.12.50]) by mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qwbekq9wm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:17:07 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=myidemia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-idemia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Kku/vPMphxd+mycDXT8wvOn56Y9oUH6GacfhhRSe55Y=; b=YwgnzPiB9KI7sVtNZ0w+a9zxb1gVW6YuEBHG5Ky+vNqZHyF4r/cFZ544cUhKPI/A7+nExsXHjKPOH/v5P2aqfdMg1nuTP44kOJf/4bHDLLoJflxLvZ95IoUnlNXZXoeUlNanxHNpELzdGI3Esrn08iMfhKWXF85dIjWYE2KbKD0= Received: from DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.165.185.143) by DB6P189MB0374.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.165.184.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1643.21; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:17:01 +0000 Received: from DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::40e9:723b:6edf:14f0]) by DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::40e9:723b:6edf:14f0%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1665.015; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:17:01 +0000 From: DESPERRIER Jean-Marc To: "Matthew A. Miller" , cose Thread-Topic: [COSE] Stabilising the x509 draft [was Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document] Thread-Index: AdTQSgI9vEGMWAyTRhSAyTO6iBMExw== Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:17:01 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [194.145.235.248] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 962740bd-7852-44e8-aebc-08d69e61567c x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DB6P189MB0374; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB6P189MB0374: x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: =?utf-8?B?MTtEQjZQMTg5TUIwMzc0OzIzOkVCei9MeEZxYzJRWis0RExrKzlQVDJudnZR?= =?utf-8?B?dEVZL0NRRm5OTHB5UVg3eEM1YXFJdDRRUjNkM2xXK2dJQjI2RHBuT25qbkRl?= =?utf-8?B?QU5oMW05ZmJUV0FJZDNVeEJlNmsyeEJhMHpRS1V3ZmFRSzVXZ0ZDLzJSR3NW?= =?utf-8?B?K1RiQnBqREdDQ01zbGJwVmpxZGxTYlErSkY2UTFaNjUxS0MzMDlYRDU5T3VC?= =?utf-8?B?WW51M3VuWE9oblBadkY2MUVUc1ArbGd3ME1iODduRmdkNFhqWDJoVFB1TmpM?= =?utf-8?B?UjA2Z1FFNHhIbW4vNGZKOVBMTzVVeHU1QytiNDkyOFU5L0h2U2N0S3lEYlBU?= =?utf-8?B?b05pbDNPNEtXaFhwd0did0pDU1dBVmszcHkrd01pNXZKM1ViZkN2dU1jaDlt?= =?utf-8?B?YzVUbEhuUTF6cUsyUm1GWmdhNzNKSkJVQTZ6T0Z5ckdiY2RHamZhc0NsRGRq?= =?utf-8?B?SytOemZROGFYZ0Y5YUtYWUd0dklQL2NsbXVobVVoWjRrSmdGdUg1ZFpCL1pk?= =?utf-8?B?eTQ1Vko5a0dyRE9obTZOTE9nU0cwWVN0OGlTMjNmOGJRRHJhaDlDMWlLd01H?= =?utf-8?B?bllLNUh3bjFvcHNpcHRMd0FYRHNSUHkzZ24ycExGbDkwUzZRWmExNWI0WWZE?= =?utf-8?B?a1k3dGRLajFMOElIRlc0NjlqaktwVkQyNk9nUXVOZUJWTk9qa1hkM2R2SlBm?= =?utf-8?B?VVA1K3RpeThSemxSR3MwZXhQcVA4Z0J2dG5VbklGN1pOMGJjYWh4WldRcWZK?= =?utf-8?B?a29RRGQ4V0FjVHc2elR0aTVvaTVIYTI5YUdBWmhKRzVUSG12UCtwb1Y5bzJ2?= =?utf-8?B?bkZpRzBhWW9iS29RdVdrSTJ6ell6Z0VDbi8yUGlSN3hsNlhBTHA3SndBVlhn?= =?utf-8?B?bXdvMTBncWZzWUdUeHI3Z0ZteWJQVWxjOC9Vc1kxYWR4UUJNWUc4d29MY1di?= =?utf-8?B?LzVubEdkbHM1cEd6OGcyTWo2UFRxQWcwYkJab2VCRVZMNDFqS0pMRmFjTktX?= =?utf-8?B?UjhaMWh6Ni93L0cyYVdoYk9CWHRpTWZlVzJlbVZEakpDcm9FK0hNcEgyOTNp?= =?utf-8?B?SGV2dm5uVC9qcjFmZVBySW1xUE0zcmpoSWNvOG1oQ1FlNi9EUUFKSHpWSlJP?= =?utf-8?B?akV1OWZEVk1CekdoTkFSenRPZUh4aXcvSVZxM09qOG5Mclk2dTNnNkl4SzlD?= =?utf-8?B?aFhqZk1XZkVoa1I5RFRDVjJXY1JLSmlBTlM1bXcxYXY5MHloQ2tnMlRnS0g2?= =?utf-8?B?S3NGVXh5ZGdkYmxTSlNTdytDemVTT2JNay90L2IyNjdtSjBSNlJBS2lMdVEy?= =?utf-8?B?VVNvOUNEZXg5L1UzRkNJYnhmbEJYVWpNcEFaT1BSWUhmbDk5UFd6MWV5LzFD?= =?utf-8?B?UmM5Sm5rWHZ5aEVPUGw5RS9rTE5SQnlRZ3dsaFBzRklnazhOWmo2U3hlM2hw?= =?utf-8?B?WGdvdy9FSlFKY0ZIenRHdjg0aXJ2anpmRjhJTUpaU2pSZFA2d3VVeHFEeURJ?= =?utf-8?B?UkZJZ1ZnbnVYa0F2TW1NWWJsR1ZHWnlFSzhkMWIxK3V2U2dTcGdUNGlVL3o3?= =?utf-8?B?K1R5VEJIenpwL3NCZllhSlBiaHFwVkE9PQ==?= x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 09634B1196 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(102836004)(106356001)(186003)(6116002)(99286004)(71200400001)(7696005)(3846002)(2906002)(6436002)(476003)(6506007)(71190400001)(105586002)(86362001)(26005)(81156014)(74316002)(81166006)(55016002)(305945005)(7736002)(8676002)(25786009)(97736004)(8936002)(14454004)(66066001)(53936002)(5660300002)(9686003)(68736007)(478600001)(316002)(256004)(486006)(33656002)(110136005)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB6P189MB0374; H:DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: idemia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: OqsJPsndIJH9H1iavBQ3y/o98cKpl6m6aosaNNCv5C7p7ASDTtTZmYKLbLqgPycl6t9Mj2zWDqJJ9vYJlWbNPyO19V6YpweXrqPY/FZEeMm8Tud5hC3Va5k3UCe7qeNQ3nDzn0qQpOQmgAifSTG2MHpscbaWD455zmBu+uM6uLV17nSfsfJNurOlrCfviNfCeS127JSSP56StgNLlkjzEmbymcGLQVdXD6JzeRLEM1KBD4H4teL+OXTTTHgncETElzx2IiYGIwhmAL7HHC813+9joKdEAcSrWLvaqzmnKAY2Ha2RJKTbLKJJT7hhwZ5cplZ82z1Fun9OCWU0W0lLh3bAvbvnprX8s1/x7jIlFV2qa1f9UjY06gUMZkrtSrY7q7+dg6V713T0hs8AFXxptkoNygjt8P15RsF55Kg/+EM= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: idemia.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 962740bd-7852-44e8-aebc-08d69e61567c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Mar 2019 16:17:01.7650 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 7694d41c-5504-43d9-9e40-cb254ad755ec X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6P189MB0374 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9182 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_idemia_notspam policy=outbound_idemia score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903010113 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Stabilising the x509 draft [was 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 16:17:13 -0000 SGksIEknbSBuZXV0cmFsIHdpdGggcmVnYXJkIHRvIHRoZSBkZWNpc2lvbiBhYm91dCBhIHN0YW5k YWxvbmUgaGFzaCBkb2N1bWVudCwgaG93ZXZlciBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBwb2ludCB0aGF0IGFzICBJ U08vSUVDIEpUQyAxL1NDIDE3L1dHIDEwIGhhcyBub3cgZGVjaWRlZCB0byBnbyBmb3J3YXJkIHdp dGggdXNpbmcgQ09TRSBpbnNpZGUgdGhlIElTTyAxODAxMy01IGRvY3VtZW50LCB3ZSB0b28gd291 bGQgaGF2ZSBhIG5lZWQgZm9yIGVhcmx5IGFzc2lnbm1lbnQgb2YgdmFsdWVzLCB0byBiZSBhYmxl IHRvIHByb3RvdHlwZSwgYXQgbGVhc3QgZm9yIHRoZSB4NWNoYWluIGhlYWRlci4NCg0KUmVhZGlu ZyB0aGUgbWludXRlcywgd2hhdCBraW5kIG9mIHBsYXlpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGUgc3BlYyB3b3VsZCBi ZSByZXF1aXJlZCB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGFkdmFuY2UgPyBUcnkgdG8gZG8gYSBzYW1wbGUgaW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb24gPw0KDQpCciwgSmVhbi1NYXJjIERlc3BlcnJpZXINCg0KLS0tLS1NZXNzYWdlIGQn b3JpZ2luZS0tLS0tDQpEZcKgOiBDT1NFIDxjb3NlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+IERlIGxhIHBh cnQgZGUgTWF0dGhldyBBLiBNaWxsZXINCkVudm95w6nCoDogbWFyZGkgMjYgZsOpdnJpZXIgMjAx OSAwMToxNg0Kw4DCoDogY29zZSA8Y29zZUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCk9iamV0wqA6IFtDT1NFXSBDYWxs IGZvciBDb25zZW5zdXM6IFN0YW5kYWxvbmUgSGFzaCBBbGdvcml0aG1zIERvY3VtZW50DQoNClRo aXMgbWVzc2FnZXMgc3RhcnRzIGEgY2FsbCBmb3IgY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRvIHNlcGFyYXRlIHRoZSBD T1NFIGhhc2ggYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBpbnRvIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGVuZGluZyBvbiAy MDE4LTAzLTEwLg0KDQpJbiB0aGUgdmlydHVhbCBpbnRlcmltIG9uIDAyLTE1LCBpdCB3YXMgcHJv cG9zZWQgdG8gc2VwYXJhdGUgdGhlbSBmcm9tIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtY29zZS14NTA5LCB0byBhbGxv dyB0aGUgaGFzaCBhbGdvcml0aG0gcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9ucyB0byBzdGFiaWxpemUgbW9yZSBxdWlj a2x5IHRoYW4gdGhlIHJlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIFguNTA5IGRyYWZ0LiAgSWYgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3Jv dXAgYWdyZWVzIHdpdGggc2VwYXJhdGluZyB0aGUgYWxnb3JpdGhtcywgdGhlbiBhIGRvY3VtZW50 IHdpbGwgYmUgcHVibGlzaGVkIHRoYXQgY29uc2lzdHMgb2YgU2VjdGlvbiA0IChIYXNoIEFsZ29y aXRobSBJZGVudGlmaWVycykgYW5kIFNlY3Rpb24gNS4zIChDT1NFIEFsZ29yaXRobSBSZWdpc3Ry eSkgZnJvbSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWNvc2UteDUwOS4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgd2l0aCB3aGV0 aGVyIG9yIG5vdCB5b3Ugc3VwcG9ydCBzZXBhcmF0aW5nIHRoZSBoYXNoIGFsZ29yaXRobXMgaW50 byBhIHNlcGFyYXRlIGRvY3VtZW50LiAgSWYgeW91IGRvIG5vdCBzdXBwb3J0IHRoaXMsIHBsZWFz ZSBpbmRpY2F0ZSB3aHkgbm90Lg0KDQoNCi0gSXZheWxvIGFuZCBNYXR0aGV3DQpDT1NFIENoYWly cw0KDQo= From nobody Fri Mar 1 09:36:48 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 E91961200B3 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:36:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=myidemia.onmicrosoft.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 TQHeL-5sGfHp for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com (mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com [91.207.212.183]) (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 8636312008A for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0136513.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x21HaQ0X014818; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:36:35 GMT Received: from eur04-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3eur04lp2056.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.12.56]) by mx08-0018b601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qy4208pxs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 01 Mar 2019 17:36:34 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=myidemia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-idemia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=sYlilUdZKBtipkzc41oXrb1B0D8lOegpLE/lkqhdiyU=; b=ZM7TaGzWR7iaQ16Loh8cuNNQWmfz9Je5h7LOsKsOzb7V3nI5iCz7CnImXgPB4bD27V1tvgCvZsycbDdqcptI96OyIEGeVgD4DFGYL7PcqEhJxdftM6hyqdASiZ8ga7zQE+hlkEEBVfvyvRWP+v8IevV6jXwvUBxkC/hedQACwFk= Received: from DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.165.185.143) by DB6P189MB0296.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.165.185.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1665.16; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:36:33 +0000 Received: from DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::40e9:723b:6edf:14f0]) by DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::40e9:723b:6edf:14f0%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1665.015; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:36:33 +0000 From: DESPERRIER Jean-Marc To: Jim Schaad , 'cose' Thread-Topic: Adding new curves for ECDSA signatures Thread-Index: AdTQTwrEoQNW84DvR5GSSNpiIG0suA== Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:36:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [194.145.235.248] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e8f4340d-e648-4ca9-8b21-08d69e6c7271 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DB6P189MB0296; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB6P189MB0296: x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: =?utf-8?B?MTtEQjZQMTg5TUIwMjk2OzIzOmRDVnF4SXRONGxLZkFQYXRFdWpoSnA5QkRj?= =?utf-8?B?RHBFS29xcWlmZUY4L1IzV0NiZGN4Q1IrR2JVRjBCOTVRcHg1WjJvSU1Hb2pH?= =?utf-8?B?RVZ4Q0ROQjRhUWMvNDFXdVFER1l0VDZubXppQUZOa0dGc1JZSjNGak5vamF1?= =?utf-8?B?UnFTUE84MDJieVloT0UwZjQ2RS9Qdkdub0Q0MjUwZitzQzZIZ0dwQzZ0M3o1?= =?utf-8?B?cnB3c2VlNURVZ2ZhTktHMkNwUjVmRllnRWhmRnR5S2lqeEpuM0JQdnlYcXJv?= =?utf-8?B?N1hBSzNmM3dqNDFuNkxid0ZYbUlVYmJWb24wc0FBWTkxN1pzR0h2aW5yQUx4?= =?utf-8?B?NmNnU3piQUYwUHdoamVRS3NkYS9mekNtbHdOQmhwL2RKUzFrRlJFKzV0NHFm?= =?utf-8?B?Rzc1TkpXQ0t5M0xuWWhNQXFYYjhGRXJ0UE5uTnE2WTQ5azJlQmFWVDhKcVZJ?= =?utf-8?B?R201YytCT1VBM3lUL1A5SDA3cGQ2dzdQR2JkaXlyaXAzZnJCSmFId0VCQStM?= =?utf-8?B?OXdnNXIxeTh4ZGdvZzdWcmtjNytZcVZKay8wdFA4SEduTW83bkM0dlp6REZ0?= =?utf-8?B?cXdQZ05hcFlSWEpnRjNtZENjNldUanBDczgwM3FDMW9pRjZBNVd1SmFPbEIv?= =?utf-8?B?QUwyWTNrdUxtRElvN0hhTHF0cGtnd00wd1BadXNyaVhUaDUrK21WRGJUTk51?= =?utf-8?B?aTNVTnplWjBQd0VldUMwcEYyYU9XSEdRZFQ3M0dZSUhhYXZpb1QrTVMrdE1L?= =?utf-8?B?c0NHeGRCTXZ4TllDQUhIQzF2Z2pwUTFZb3ZCY0pFcDZCK2c2WTBZbXBwUmxZ?= =?utf-8?B?Q2F4N2dDSGNycDZvU0ZFUWRwVHVGUkdwYjdDSmFESWlXWlJNcUxMZ1o2cU92?= =?utf-8?B?bTJpV01hWGVPUDRjZHUwenJPWUpya1gyYlZiM1Zkd0UvMjVDQ0J0ZEtQODBL?= =?utf-8?B?OHhJQXRML3Q2bXhBcElJKzFUczdyWndGWitKVVpvUngzYmJlRHdtYUpYVFhB?= =?utf-8?B?alB2Y0NkS2NhSWlhRXN1SWg0elRrRTI3UEIrYUVBdzZDY2NzV1hmUzRYVXgy?= =?utf-8?B?L0ZML0xzUnZFajNMV0lqZFBoaTdLTXo5OVptZFR5MHd5NThiRXh6N2dNcGx3?= =?utf-8?B?bHR1Y1lYVWdHYjFncTEwV0Z4WlVDQW9HaVhnU09SQTlGZ0F2d05YUTA2bXBV?= =?utf-8?B?dkZkanIwNFFnN1oxNGNIOHdUTngzL0RLSFl1Sy9rYk1sR29Bck9zQWdLY3Nk?= =?utf-8?B?MDZKdjZsSW9SWW05TUZaajYxdHdYTEJTdS9yTlpxY2FuRW05K3l1c1J6dFhR?= =?utf-8?B?K254WitJVEpMY1NMYkw5L2hqTExVNHRvUWJTZVR6NTNOaFVhaVd1Yno4eGx2?= =?utf-8?B?Um14NG0wK2JmZzl2Qk9EclJVZ2xLV1FOZjIranA0MW9jNjl6bkVHY3JmNWhC?= =?utf-8?B?WnoyVVVZeFBoazdMY1EwSThlQllDZnh5dnlJNlY3QTJ5NGNIL2UveTBNMmp0?= =?utf-8?Q?QGy05LHSm6HaPFFYGzWstMLSrNEBlG0WQq4OQS00fyVnRC?= x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 09634B1196 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(189003)(199004)(110136005)(14454004)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(106356001)(8936002)(316002)(26005)(102836004)(186003)(6506007)(476003)(486006)(33656002)(105586002)(97736004)(7696005)(99286004)(53936002)(68736007)(305945005)(66066001)(7736002)(6436002)(6246003)(74316002)(2906002)(478600001)(55016002)(9686003)(229853002)(25786009)(3846002)(6116002)(86362001)(256004)(14444005)(71190400001)(71200400001)(5660300002)(21314003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB6P189MB0296; H:DB6P189MB0309.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: idemia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: /7sflLfmp2fGpmmyZZSYcaLA5qbdYCJ6ITiA8IX2dufE0BBX3S1AARZET/SMeOEmL7ytr+5AHFnTzflv4FA2UGwla+R+QtvCurX/NYyjNuT5tVU/NCfPC/x8waBOvIBD4hd/uUuJho1+s4e7/upoTquv3jQd07LHoVU0WkGosuXpp4hmvowq4FAflwRToSJ3Hgf9XBxQpdFscLhbuIduZpUQEv1JHsK/rVVOGqcIKIMeAbI53Sf5IgcEXptdasGepqyvydP/gFjwUrfnzsfGzM88u/mHI7XGx3QGVeTCOMoN3hfivqTGu3mlYpd3sWq6eTHCEfFuBJ9QLIC74VDVR54XrFVJgHxSpVyJQBQwYoFh3+4oTf2dO4vwWNW6FkGeYgYhej7HGxsKvVyUGrcUY7fmgqLnR7YvMu45yXRbn80= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: idemia.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e8f4340d-e648-4ca9-8b21-08d69e6c7271 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Mar 2019 17:36:33.1342 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 7694d41c-5504-43d9-9e40-cb254ad755ec X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6P189MB0296 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9182 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_idemia_notspam policy=outbound_idemia score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903010123 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Adding new curves for ECDSA signatures 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 17:36:47 -0000 PiBEZcKgOiBKaW0gU2NoYWFkIDxpZXRmQGF1Z3VzdGNlbGxhcnMuY29tPiANCj4+IEZyb206IERF U1BFUlJJRVIgSmVhbi1NYXJjIDxqZWFuLW1hcmMuZGVzcGVycmllckBpZGVtaWEuY29tPg0KPj4g VGhlIG90aGVyIHJlbWFyayBpcyB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IG9ubHkgdGhlIHNlY3AqKipyMSBjdXJ2 ZXMgY2FuIGJlIA0KPj4gdXNlZCBmb3IgRUNEU0Egc2lnbmF0dXJlLCB3aGljaCBpcyBhIGJpZyBj b25zdHJhaW50IGZvciBhbGdvcml0aG0gYWdpbGl0eS4NCj4+IEkgd291bGQgc3VwcG9ydCBoYXZp bmcgYW4gb3B0aW9uYWwgc2lnbmVkIGhlYWRlciB0byBzcGVjaWZ5IGFuIA0KPj4gYWx0ZXJuYXRp dmUgRUMgY3VydmUgdG8gdXNlIGluIHJlcGxhY2VtZW50IG9mIHRoZSBkZWZhdXQgc2VjcCBvbmUu DQo+PiBPciBpZiB0aGlzIGRvZXNuJ3Qgd29yaywgaGF2ZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIHNpZ25hdHVyZSBz Y2hlbWUgZm9yIHVzaW5nIGEgDQo+PiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgY3VydmUgZmFtaWx5Lg0KDQo+IEl0IHNo b3VsZCBiZSBwb3NzaWJsZSBmb3Igc29tZWJvZHkgdG8gd3JpdGUgYSBuZXcgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2hp Y2ggd291bGQgY3JlYXRlIHRoZSBjdXJ2ZSBhc3NpZ25tZW50cyBmb3Igb3RoZXIgY3VydmVzIHRv IGJlIGNyZWF0ZWQuICANCj4gSXQgd291bGQgbmVlZCB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGNsZWFyIHdoYXQgdGhl IGFsZ29yaXRobXMgaXQgY2FuIGJlIHVzZWQgd2l0aCBhcmUgYnV0LCBvdGhlciB0aGFuIHRoZSBw b3RlbnRpYWwgYnV5IA0KPiBvZmYgb24gdGhlIGN1cnZlcyBmcm9tIENGUkcsIHRoaXMgd291bGQg YmUgYSB0cml2aWFsIHRhc2suDQoNCkhpLCBub3cgdGhhdCB0aGUgSVNPL0lFQyBKVEMgMS9TQyAx Ny9XRyAxMCBncm91cCBpcyBnb2luZyBmb3J3YXJkIHdpdGggdXNpbmcgQ09TRSwgdGhleSBhcmUg ZGVtYW5kcyB0byBhZGQgdGhlIGJyYWlucG9vbCBjdXJ2ZXMgYXMgb3B0aW9uIGZvciBFQ0RTQSBz aWduYXR1cmUgKGJyYWlucG9vbFAyNTZyMSwgYnJhaW5wb29sUDMyMHIxLCBicmFpbnBvb2xQMzg0 cjEsIGJyYWlucG9vbFA1MTJyMSkuDQpTbyBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gZGlzY3VzcyBtb3JlIGFi b3V0IGhvdyBpdCBjYW4gYmUgZG9uZS4NCg0KRGVmaW5pbmcgbmV3IHZhbHVlIGZvciB0aGUgQ09T RSBFbGxpcHRpYyBDdXJ2ZXMgdGFibGUgd291bGRuJ3QgYmUgaGFyZC4NClRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBp cyBtb3JlIGhvdyB0aGV5IGNhbiBiZSBhbGxvd2VkIGluc2lkZSBzaWduYXR1cmUsIHNpbmNlIHRo ZSBFU3h4eCBhbGcgY3VycmVudGx5IGFyZSBvbmx5IGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVzcGVj dGl2ZSBjdXJ2ZSBQLXh4eC4NCkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB0aGUgU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlv bnMgdGhhdCBpdCBkb2Vzbid0IHNlZW0gYSBnb29kIGlkZWEgdG8gbWFrZSBzdWJzdGl0dXRpb24g b2YgZGlmZmVyZW50IGN1cnZlIG9mIHRoZSBzYW1lIHNpemUgcG9zc2libGUuIA0KRXZlbiBpZiB0 aGUgcmlzayBzZWVtcyByYXRoZXIgdGhlb3JldGljYWwsIG90aGVyIHNpZ25hdHVyZSBmb3JtYXRz IGRvbid0IGFsbG93IGl0Lg0KDQpTbyBlaXRoZXIgYSBuZXcgc2lnbmF0dXJlIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBp cyBhZGRlZCB3aGljaCBpcyBzdGlsbCBFQ0RTQSwgYnV0IHRoaXMgdGltZSB3aXRoIGJyYWlucG9v bCwgb3IgYSBuZXcgc2lnbmVkIGhlYWRlciBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIHRoYXQgbXVzdCBiZSBwcmVzZW50 IHdoZW4gRVN4eHggaXNuJ3QgdXNlZCB3aXRoIGEgUC14eHggY3VydmUuIA0KQW55IHNpZ25hdHVy ZSB3aXRoIHRoYXQgaGVhZGVyIHVuc2lnbmVkIHNob3VsZCBiZSByZWplY3RlZCBhcyBpbnZhbGlk Lg0KSXQgY291bGQgZGlyZWN0bHkgY29udGFpbiB0aGUgY3VydmUgbnVtYmVyIGZyb20gdGhlIENP U0UgRWxsaXB0aWMgQ3VydmVzIHRhYmxlIHRvIHNpbXBsaWZ5IGV4cGFuc2lvbnMuDQoNCkkgZmlu ZCB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIHNvbHV0aW9uIG1vcmUgc2F0aXNmeWluZyBhcyBleHBhbmRpbmcgdGhlIHN1 cHBvcnQgdG8gZnVydGhlciBuZXcgY3VydmVzIHdvdWxkIGJlY29tZSBzaW1wbGVyLCBidXQgaWYg d2UgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSB3aWxsIGJlIG9ubHkgYSBsaW1pdGVkIG51bWJlciBvZiBu ZXcgb3B0aW9ucyBiZXlvbmQgY3VydmUgUC14eHggYW5kIGJyYWlucG9vbCwgdGhlIGZpcnN0IG9u ZSBtZWFucyBsZXNzIGNoYW5nZSB0byB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBsb2dpYy4NCg0KQnIsDQpKZWFuLU1h cmMgRGVzcGVycmllcg0K From nobody Fri Mar 1 10:38:06 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 CFE5B130E9F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:38:04 -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 shV8IYzGLVgN for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:38:02 -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 26923130E7F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:38:01 -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, 1 Mar 2019 10:37:34 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'DESPERRIER Jean-Marc' , 'cose' References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:37:27 -0800 Message-ID: <000901d4d05d$d58fbd10$80af3730$@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: AQHLc5H8bKbHWgME6t9vTcAML3otZ6YJzJbw Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Adding new curves for ECDSA signatures 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 18:38:05 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: DESPERRIER Jean-Marc > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 9:37 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; 'cose' > Subject: RE: Adding new curves for ECDSA signatures >=20 > > De : Jim Schaad > >> From: DESPERRIER Jean-Marc The > >> other remark is the fact that only the secp***r1 curves can be used > >> for ECDSA signature, which is a big constraint for algorithm = agility. > >> I would support having an optional signed header to specify an > >> alternative EC curve to use in replacement of the defaut secp one. > >> Or if this doesn't work, have additional signature scheme for using = a > >> different curve family. >=20 > > It should be possible for somebody to write a new document which = would > create the curve assignments for other curves to be created. > > It would need to make it clear what the algorithms it can be used = with > > are but, other than the potential buy off on the curves from CFRG, = this > would be a trivial task. >=20 > Hi, now that the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10 group is going forward with = using > COSE, they are demands to add the brainpool curves as option for ECDSA > signature (brainpoolP256r1, brainpoolP320r1, brainpoolP384r1, > brainpoolP512r1). > So I would like to discuss more about how it can be done. >=20 > Defining new value for the COSE Elliptic Curves table wouldn't be = hard. > The question is more how they can be allowed inside signature, since = the > ESxxx alg currently are only authorized with the respective curve = P-xxx. > I agree with the Security Considerations that it doesn't seem a good = idea to > make substitution of different curve of the same size possible. > Even if the risk seems rather theoretical, other signature formats = don't allow > it. I could wish that it is true that other signature formats don't allow = for a change of the curve to happen, however this is not generally a = true statement. It is true for TLS, but it is not true for CMS unless = you include the attribute for the signature algorithm which is not = normally done. I haven't looked recently, but I don't believe that it = would be true either for JOSE or XML DigSig as well. Step number 1 would be to define the new values for the COSE Elliptic = Curves table. If people are not worried about the curve substitution = attack then that would be the end of it. >=20 > So either a new signature mechanism is added which is still ECDSA, but = this > time with brainpool, or a new signed header is defined that must be = present > when ESxxx isn't used with a P-xxx curve. > Any signature with that header unsigned should be rejected as invalid. > It could directly contain the curve number from the COSE Elliptic = Curves table > to simplify expansions. >=20 > I find the second solution more satisfying as expanding the support to > further new curves would become simpler, but if we consider that there = will > be only a limited number of new options beyond curve P-xxx and = brainpool, > the first one means less change to the current logic. Alternatively, one could define the new header as only being required = for non P-* curves which means that it only needs to be enforced for new = curves. =20 Overall I think that defining a new signature algorithms with the new = algorithm parameter or adding the new algorithm parameter to the current = signature algorithms would both be satisfactory approaches. What you should do then is: 1. Write up an ID for this. I would suggest that the draft filename be = draft- desperrier-cose-brainpool. I would be more interested in this = being an RFC if the new header parameter is defined for the current = algorithms, but if it is going to be new signature algorithms then it = could be done here or over in the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10. Either way = getting an ID for us to look at is useful. 2. After the draft has been posted, ask for discussion on it. If you = think you are going to be in Prague for the F2F then I would be = interested in meeting with you about it. You could also ask for some = time at the F2F COSE meeting. Depending on how long I end up running = with my presentations and discussions there may or may not be time. Jim >=20 > Br, > Jean-Marc Desperrier From nobody Fri Mar 1 11:01:45 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 73CB3130EA4 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:01:43 -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 Sut2lirN7wFg for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:01:40 -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 E80F9130E7F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:01:39 -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, 1 Mar 2019 11:01:32 -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> <036501d4cfcb$fb53f080$f1fbd180$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: <036501d4cfcb$fb53f080$f1fbd180$@augustcellars.com> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:01:25 -0800 Message-ID: <001101d4d061$2e798cf0$8b6ca6d0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01D4D01E.2058E500" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQGJvehPFa3lptSU7zVphEh/rKmRBQLcNKsXAfejzTEBi+ZPIwJpPdpOAe2c+rACJvzleAIPkmr1phXX7dA= 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 19:01:43 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01D4D01E.2058E500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly. COSE does not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 AlgorithmIdentifier where the algorithm identifier and a set of parameters are combined together into a single encodable entity. Instead parameters for algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE structure either as protected, unprotected or implicit attributes. Since the general structure I have been telling people to use an array with an algorithm identifier and the hash value with additional elements dealing with thing like how do you find it and other sorts of things. Thus we could indeed define equivalent to the -len version by creating an algorithm parameter. The question would be should we define some type of COSE structure which is similar to AlgorithmIdentifier so that it can be referenced and used in those cases where parameters should be included with the algorithm number/string is placed. Jim From: COSE On Behalf Of Jim Schaad Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:13 PM To: 'Russ Housley' Cc: 'cose' Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document 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_0012_01D4D01E.2058E500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

After = sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly.

 

COSE does = not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 AlgorithmIdentifier = where the algorithm identifier and a set of parameters are combined = together into a single encodable entity.  Instead parameters for = algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE structure either as = protected, unprotected or implicit attributes.  Since the general = structure I have been telling people to use an array with an algorithm = identifier and the hash value with additional elements dealing with = thing like how do you find it and other sorts of = things.

 

Thus we could indeed define equivalent to the -len = version by creating an algorithm parameter.  The question would be = should we define some type of COSE structure which is similar to = AlgorithmIdentifier so that it can be referenced and used in those cases = where parameters should be included with the algorithm number/string is = placed.

 

Jim

 

 

From: COSE = <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jim = Schaad
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:13 PM
To: = 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: 'cose' = <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: = Standalone Hash Algorithms Document

 

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_0012_01D4D01E.2058E500-- From nobody Fri Mar 1 11:20:34 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 8ECDA130EB4 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:20:32 -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 P5vyiWjtAduF for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:20:29 -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 46FFE130E7F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:20:29 -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, 1 Mar 2019 11:20:22 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'DESPERRIER Jean-Marc' , 'cose' References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:20:16 -0800 Message-ID: <001801d4d063$d0485cd0$70d91670$@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: AQEbb48vIY/lCHthgQZyzZZtVGFCC6dp5R8w Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Stabilising the x509 draft [was 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 19:20:33 -0000 >From my point of view, the major thing is to try and figure out if the = set of items is complete and resolve the question of should we do the = same thing that JOSE does where they allow for x.509 certificates to be = carried as part of a cose key structure. While my personal preference = is no, I don't like dealing with all of the issues around making sure = things match, I could be persuaded otherwise.=20 Doing some prototyping of using them in various contexts would be = something that can help resolve the question of completeness. As an = example, there is currently no support for things like OCSP or CRLs = which I am currently just fine with. I don't know if that is true for = the work you are playing with. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of DESPERRIER Jean-Marc > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 8:17 AM > To: Matthew A. Miller ; cose > > Subject: [COSE] Stabilising the x509 draft [was Call for Consensus: = Standalone > Hash Algorithms Document] >=20 > Hi, I'm neutral with regard to the decision about a standalone hash > document, however I'd like to point that as ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10 = has > now decided to go forward with using COSE inside the ISO 18013-5 > document, we too would have a need for early assignment of values, to = be > able to prototype, at least for the x5chain header. >=20 > Reading the minutes, what kind of playing with the spec would be = required > to make it advance ? Try to do a sample implementation ? >=20 > Br, Jean-Marc Desperrier >=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : COSE De la part de Matthew A. Miller = Envoy=C3=A9 : > mardi 26 f=C3=A9vrier 2019 01:16 =C3=80 : cose Objet : = [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 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Fri Mar 1 11:34:15 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 9EC49130EB0 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:34:14 -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 zPFJQP42g9tn for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:34:13 -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 995E0130E7F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:34:12 -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, 1 Mar 2019 11:34:06 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'ivaylo petrov' , 'cose' References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:34:01 -0800 Message-ID: <001901d4d065$bb1cfb20$3156f160$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01D4D022.ACFAF3A0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIGrg+atSv18WHNrOwZfY58wzoHKKWTbxCw Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1 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 19:34:15 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01D4D022.ACFAF3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just to clarify. The CDDL structure name was already renamed in RFC = 8152. This is just a question of changing the context string used to = create and validate the signature. =20 Jim =20 =20 From: COSE On Behalf Of ivaylo petrov Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 8:06 AM To: cose Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: CounterSignature0 vs = CounterSignature1 =20 Dear all, =20 During the virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised about=20 shorter form of counter signature that only has the counter signature = (appendix A.2) and infers a number of parameters from other context. = Part of the issue is that in Section 4.4 the context string in = Sig_stucture is "CounterSignature", whereas in A.2 it is called = "CounterSignature0". At the same time possibly it is more appropriate to = name it CounterSignature1 considering that it has one counter signature. =20 Please respond whether you agree that CounterSignature1 is a better name = than CounterSignature0 and provide any other comments regarding those = issues. =20 Best regards, =20 - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01D4D022.ACFAF3A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just to clarify.=C2=A0 The CDDL structure name was = already renamed in RFC 8152.=C2=A0 This is just a question of changing = the context string used to create and validate the = signature.

 

Jim

 

 

From: COSE = <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ivaylo = petrov
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 8:06 AM
To: cose = <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: [COSE] Call for Consensus: = CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1

 

Dear = all,

 

During the = virtual interim on 02-15 a question was raised = about 

shorter form of = counter signature that only has the counter signature (appendix A.2) and = infers a number of parameters from other context. Part of the issue is = that in Section 4.4 the context string in Sig_stucture is = "CounterSignature", whereas in A.2 it is called = "CounterSignature0". At the same time possibly it is more = appropriate to name it CounterSignature1 considering that it has one = counter signature.

 <= /span>

Please respond = whether you agree that CounterSignature1 is a better name = than CounterSignature0 and provide any other comments regarding = those issues.=

 <= /span>

Best = regards,=

 <= /span>

- Matthew = and Ivaylo=

COSE = Chairs=

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01D4D022.ACFAF3A0-- From nobody Fri Mar 1 12:02:25 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 80233130EED for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:02:11 -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 y_pvitjec7zN for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:02:07 -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 E7119130EDC for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:02:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FBC300A20 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:43:48 -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 bwV1WVduOkrZ for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72AE63002C1; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:43:45 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4D8FF3A6-7AEC-4DD9-92EE-D2DCAB44F458" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:02:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <001101d4d061$2e798cf0$8b6ca6d0$@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> <036501d4cfcb$fb53f080$f1fbd180$@augustcellars.com> <001101d4d061$2e798cf0$8b6ca6d0$@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 20:02:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4D8FF3A6-7AEC-4DD9-92EE-D2DCAB44F458 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii For now, it is probably fine to define SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash = functions, and then deal with the -len ones when there is a need for = them. Russ > On Mar 1, 2019, at 2:01 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: >=20 > After sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly. > =20 > COSE does not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 = AlgorithmIdentifier where the algorithm identifier and a set of = parameters are combined together into a single encodable entity. = Instead parameters for algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE = structure either as protected, unprotected or implicit attributes. = Since the general structure I have been telling people to use an array = with an algorithm identifier and the hash value with additional elements = dealing with thing like how do you find it and other sorts of things. > =20 > Thus we could indeed define equivalent to the -len version by creating = an algorithm parameter. The question would be should we define some = type of COSE structure which is similar to AlgorithmIdentifier so that = it can be referenced and used in those cases where parameters should be = included with the algorithm number/string is placed. > =20 > Jim > =20 > =20 > From: COSE > On = Behalf Of Jim Schaad > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:13 PM > To: 'Russ Housley' > > Cc: 'cose' > > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document > =20 > 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. > =20 > Jim > =20 > =20 > From: Russ Housley >=20 > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:48 PM > To: Jim Schaad > > Cc: cose > > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document > =20 > Jim: > =20 > Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash functions are = defined by NIST [1]: > =20 > id-shake128 > =20 > id-shake256 > =20 > id-shake128-len > =20 > id-shake256-len > =20 > The first two have no parameters, and the second two have an output = length parameter. > =20 > These are the ones that should probably be included in a COSE-friendly = manner. > =20 > Russ > =20 > =20 > [1] = https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Computer-Security-Objects-Register/Algorith= m-Registration = > =20 > =20 >=20 >> 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 >>=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 >>>=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 >>=20 >>> be added. >>>=20 >>>>=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 >>>>=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? >>>=20 >>>> 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 >>>>=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 >>>>=20 >>>> Jim >>>>=20 >>>>=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 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad > >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>>>>=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 >>>>>>=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 = > =20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose = --Apple-Mail=_4D8FF3A6-7AEC-4DD9-92EE-D2DCAB44F458 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii For = now, it is probably fine to define SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 = hash functions, and then deal with the -len ones when there is a need = for them.
Russ


On Mar 1, 2019, at 2:01 PM, Jim = Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

After = sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly.
 
COSE does = not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 AlgorithmIdentifier = where the algorithm identifier and a set of parameters are combined = together into a single encodable entity.  Instead parameters for = algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE structure either as = protected, unprotected or implicit attributes.  Since the general = structure I have been telling people to use an array with an algorithm = identifier and the hash value with additional elements dealing with = thing like how do you find it and other sorts of things.
 
Thus we = could indeed define equivalent to the -len version by creating an = algorithm parameter.  The question would be should we define some = type of COSE structure which is similar to AlgorithmIdentifier so that = it can be referenced and used in those cases where parameters should be = included with the algorithm number/string is placed.
 
Jim
 
 
From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf = Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 = 5:13 PM
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: 'cose' <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for = Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document
 
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<= 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
 
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

= --Apple-Mail=_4D8FF3A6-7AEC-4DD9-92EE-D2DCAB44F458-- From nobody Fri Mar 1 13:20:14 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 3EC1113127F; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:10:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , Cc: ekr@rtfm.com, cose@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.92.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <155147461925.6101.14276274452485238980.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 13:10:19 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] cose - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 104 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, 01 Mar 2019 21:10:39 -0000 Dear Ivaylo Petrov, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. cose Session 1 (2:00 requested) Tuesday, 26 March 2019, Morning Session I 0900-1100 Room Name: Berlin/Brussels size: 100 --------------------------------------------- iCalendar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/sessions/cose.ics Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area Name: Security Area Session Requester: Ivaylo Petrov Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 75 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: ace cbor core lamps lpwan oauth saag secdispatch secevent suit stir Second Priority: cfrg emu Third Priority: 6tisch dispatch t2trg People who must be present: Eric Rescorla Matthew A. Miller Ivaylo Petrov Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Fri Mar 1 18:16:19 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 A7403126D00; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:15:56 -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 X7BDtjqO8uTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:15:53 -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 E13EF129284; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:15:52 -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 x222FeOa008142; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 03:15:46 +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 44B8yh472nz1Bp8; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 03:15:40 +0100 (CET) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2019 03:15:37 +0100 Message-Id: <932D3C6C-E9F7-4B9D-B335-4B43ADA0936C@tzi.org> To: ace , 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: FINAL AGENDA X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 02:15:57 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the FINAL AGENDA for IETF104. Remember that, even though this will now go to the printers, there is still some potential for changes. The somewhat annoying coflicts cose/teep and lpwan/t2trg remain. I also don't like that I'll have to miss the cacao BOF (vs. core), dinrg/suit, coinrg/git. rats has been swapped against the paw/saag conflict. 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 FRIDAY, March 22, 2019 -- Fri 0930=E2=80=931830 T2TRG Work Meeting -- Istanbul room 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 3 INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Karlin 3 RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication 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 Berlin/Brussels INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Grand BR 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 Grand BR INT homenet Home Networking WG Berlin/Brussels SEC *** cose CBOR Object Signing and Encryption WG Karlin 1/2 SEC *** teep Trusted Execution Environment = Provisioning WG Congress H 2 TSV quic QUIC WG 1120-1220 Morning Session II Athens/Barcel. INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Congress H 1 IRTF qirg Quantum Internet Proposed Research Group Congress H 3 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1350-1550 Afternoon Session I Berlin/Brussels ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Karlin 1/2 OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG Congress H 1 SEC mls Messaging Layer Security WG Congress H 3 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Grand BR INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG Congress H 1 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 1 RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Grand BR RTG rift Routing In Fat Trees WG Congress H 3 SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = WG Congress H 2 TSV quic QUIC WG 1120-1320 Morning Session II Grand BR IRTF cfrg Crypto Forum - 12:20 - 13:20 Grand BR SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG - 11:20 - 12:20 1500-1700 Afternoon Session I Grand 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 3 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Grand BR INT *** paw Predictable and Available Wireless BOF Athens/Barcel. OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Congress H 1 SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1610-1810 Afternoon Session II Athens/Barcel. INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Grand BR SEC *** rats Remote ATtestation ProcedureS BOF FRIDAY, March 29, 2019 0900-1030 Morning Session I Grand BR ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Congress H 1 INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Berlin/Brussels SEC cacao Collaborative Automated Course of Action = Operations for Cyber Security BOF 1050-1250 Morning Session II Berlin/Brussels INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG Karlin 1/2 IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Congress H 1 SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Athens/Barcel. TSV taps Transport Services WG From nobody Sat Mar 2 11:42:15 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 79DC9124C04 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:13 -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 2_eSgj1EKNCL for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from p3plsmtpa06-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.107]) (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 4627C12008A for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.183.0.6] ([167.160.116.54]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id 0AWNheGcy0jxT0AWNhYTit; Sat, 02 Mar 2019 12:42:07 -0700 From: Laurence Lundblade Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BF1711BB-2719-4369-B087-D6EDEC63F489" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:07 -0800 In-Reply-To: <001101d4d061$2e798cf0$8b6ca6d0$@augustcellars.com> Cc: Russ Housley , 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> <036501d4cfcb$fb53f080$f1fbd180$@augustcellars.com> <001101d4d061$2e798cf0$8b6ca6d0$@augustcellars.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAjM+qN7zECOEn8+Hx0XwGmK5t87OLm50NPYsK5XAIh6s13z0MgVvoj5PD/EDd1F0eXbVP6RpcmyF1MbWm0CWNreuBwXNEhzwALpdsLQ+2f76noBJWD/ 6EmTq0qQJJ88rkOdfgww9Y/cxoCfqfVUMpPEoHsGmbvC5pRSOY+vEHQYzwbtyBDgTgwPGTtVLxoZIPMqwZrV0lvcSFQazUsWamyZhS/H+isTy+SAtpQOWN3K 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: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 19:42:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BF1711BB-2719-4369-B087-D6EDEC63F489 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I=E2=80=99m not deeply familiar with SHAKE, but can the length of the = bstr containing the SHAKE hash serve as the length parameter? LL > On Mar 1, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >=20 > After sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly. > =20 > COSE does not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 = AlgorithmIdentifier where the algorithm identifier and a set of = parameters are combined together into a single encodable entity. = Instead parameters for algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE = structure either as protected, unprotected or implicit attributes. = Since the general structure I have been telling people to use an array = with an algorithm identifier and the hash value with additional elements = dealing with thing like how do you find it and other sorts of things. > =20 > Thus we could indeed define equivalent to the -len version by creating = an algorithm parameter. The question would be should we define some = type of COSE structure which is similar to AlgorithmIdentifier so that = it can be referenced and used in those cases where parameters should be = included with the algorithm number/string is placed. > =20 > Jim > =20 > =20 > From: COSE > On = Behalf Of Jim Schaad > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:13 PM > To: 'Russ Housley' > > Cc: 'cose' > > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document > =20 > 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. > =20 > Jim > =20 > =20 > From: Russ Housley >=20 > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:48 PM > To: Jim Schaad > > Cc: cose > > Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document > =20 > Jim: > =20 > Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash functions are = defined by NIST [1]: > =20 > id-shake128 > =20 > id-shake256 > =20 > id-shake128-len > =20 > id-shake256-len > =20 > The first two have no parameters, and the second two have an output = length parameter. > =20 > These are the ones that should probably be included in a COSE-friendly = manner. > =20 > Russ > =20 > =20 > [1] = https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Computer-Security-Objects-Register/Algorith= m-Registration = > =20 > =20 >=20 >> 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 >>=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 >>>=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 >>=20 >>> be added. >>>=20 >>>>=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 >>>>=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? >>>=20 >>>> 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 >>>>=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 >>>>=20 >>>> Jim >>>>=20 >>>>=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 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad > >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>>>>=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 >>>>>>=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 = > =20 > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose = --Apple-Mail=_BF1711BB-2719-4369-B087-D6EDEC63F489 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I=E2=80= =99m not deeply familiar with SHAKE, but can the length of the bstr = containing the SHAKE hash serve as the length parameter?

LL

On Mar = 1, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

After = sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly.
 
COSE does = not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 AlgorithmIdentifier = where the algorithm identifier and a set of parameters are combined = together into a single encodable entity.  Instead parameters for = algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE structure either as = protected, unprotected or implicit attributes.  Since the general = structure I have been telling people to use an array with an algorithm = identifier and the hash value with additional elements dealing with = thing like how do you find it and other sorts of things.
 
Thus we = could indeed define equivalent to the -len version by creating an = algorithm parameter.  The question would be should we define some = type of COSE structure which is similar to AlgorithmIdentifier so that = it can be referenced and used in those cases where parameters should be = included with the algorithm number/string is placed.
 
Jim
 
 
From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf = Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 = 5:13 PM
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: 'cose' <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for = Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms Document
 
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<= 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
 
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

= --Apple-Mail=_BF1711BB-2719-4369-B087-D6EDEC63F489-- From nobody Sat Mar 2 12:49:08 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 5EE72130E9F for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:49:06 -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 du3bJ63GADYg for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:49:02 -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 7F92F130EA1 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:49:01 -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; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:48:52 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Laurence Lundblade' CC: 'Russ Housley' , '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> <036501d4cfcb$fb53f080$f1fbd180$@augustcellars.com> <001101d4d061$2e798cf0$8b6ca6d0$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:48:50 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01d4d139$58dd0d90$0a9728b0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01D4D0F6.4ABD7710" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQGJvehPFa3lptSU7zVphEh/rKmRBQLcNKsXAfejzTEBi+ZPIwJpPdpOAe2c+rACJvzleAIPkmr1ATKLm8cBdEds96YCVktQ 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: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 20:49:07 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01D4D0F6.4ABD7710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is my understanding that this would be a true statement. SHAKE = unlike SHA-2 does not produce the same prefix based on a different = output length. This means that one cannot just truncate the resulting = hash value to produce a smaller tag. =20 Jim =20 =20 From: Laurence Lundblade =20 Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 11:42 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Russ Housley ; cose Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document =20 I=E2=80=99m not deeply familiar with SHAKE, but can the length of the = bstr containing the SHAKE hash serve as the length parameter? =20 LL On Mar 1, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Jim Schaad > wrote: =20 After sleeping on this I want to change what I said slightly. =20 COSE does not support the same type of structure as the ASN.1 = AlgorithmIdentifier where the algorithm identifier and a set of = parameters are combined together into a single encodable entity. = Instead parameters for algorithms are defined and placed into a COSE = structure either as protected, unprotected or implicit attributes. = Since the general structure I have been telling people to use an array = with an algorithm identifier and the hash value with additional elements = dealing with thing like how do you find it and other sorts of things. =20 Thus we could indeed define equivalent to the -len version by creating = an algorithm parameter. The question would be should we define some = type of COSE structure which is similar to AlgorithmIdentifier so that = it can be referenced and used in those cases where parameters should be = included with the algorithm number/string is placed. =20 Jim =20 =20 From: COSE < cose-bounces@ietf.org> On = Behalf Of Jim Schaad Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:13 PM To: 'Russ Housley' < housley@vigilsec.com> Cc: 'cose' < cose@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document =20 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. =20 Jim =20 =20 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 =20 Jim: =20 Four object identifiers for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 hash functions are = defined by NIST [1]: =20 id-shake128 =20 id-shake256 =20 id-shake128-len =20 id-shake256-len =20 The first two have no parameters, and the second two have an output = length parameter. =20 These are the ones that should probably be included in a COSE-friendly = manner. =20 Russ =20 =20 [1] = = https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Computer-Security-Objects-Register/Algorit= hm-Registration =20 =20 On Feb 27, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Jim Schaad < = ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote: =20 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.=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. 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 -----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 =20 _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org = https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose =20 _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org = https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01D4D0F6.4ABD7710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It is my = understanding that this would be a true statement.=C2=A0 SHAKE unlike = SHA-2 does not produce the same prefix based on a different output = length.=C2=A0 This means that one cannot just truncate the resulting = hash value to produce a smaller tag.

 

Jim

 

 

From: = Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Sent: = Saturday, March 2, 2019 11:42 AM
To: Jim Schaad = <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: Russ Housley = <housley@vigilsec.com>; cose = <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Consensus: = Standalone Hash Algorithms Document

 

I=E2=80=99m = not deeply familiar with SHAKE, but can the length of the bstr = containing the SHAKE hash serve as the length = parameter?

 

LL



On Mar 1, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> = wrote:

 

After sleeping on this I want to change what I said = slightly.

 

COSE does not support the same type of structure as = the ASN.1 AlgorithmIdentifier where the algorithm identifier and a set = of parameters are combined together into a single encodable = entity.  Instead parameters for algorithms are defined and placed = into a COSE structure either as protected, unprotected or implicit = attributes.  Since the general structure I have been telling people = to use an array with an algorithm identifier and the hash value with = additional elements dealing with thing like how do you find it and other = sorts of things.

 

Thus we could indeed define equivalent to the -len = version by creating an algorithm parameter.  The question would be = should we define some type of COSE structure which is similar to = AlgorithmIdentifier so that it can be referenced and used in those cases = where parameters should be included with the algorithm number/string is = placed.

 

Jim

 

 

From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jim = Schaad
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 = 5:13 PM
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc:<= span class=3Dapple-converted-space> 'cose' <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for = Consensus: Standalone Hash Algorithms = Document

 

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



-----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<= /a>

 

____________= ___________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
<= a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

 

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01D4D0F6.4ABD7710-- From nobody Tue Mar 5 10:15:44 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 04DBA12D829 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:15:43 -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=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 NGKhsiNIcdxm for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:15:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2f]) (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 5DC9012D84C for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:15:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com with SMTP id j12so596018vsd.3 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 10:15:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1/ZYbKC1vGgZE1BA3Tspg2CNzoko2Lfnld2SAuNh8Lk=; b=tz5L7qOhlaLKPgHAg6FZeKjUY/s4qT0BuOlhsE2x8ZNDI0NxpFuIVpfOd1qyosOEIq Rvwj8eNuQIdx/j/bL3hbTiUs6fKBZdkA51en0t5iCMa1gz5iqEFuc8Pg3+0x3If5rtDC GKwrJd5eOhSpfgSKGKBCoWNo0DE7/DDl3XZUu4oZ/WRXTZ2BubtXjL1ZyJCH5bR5piXm ln0bpth6PMtMoAzsMfpUp6iHhflAv6bAHTlK/k69zDyxU0I0ck+29muKsyMbbbI5NBij 0xDSdXWU62QHv/N+ddFKYP8CDma2lFow4mdaDSbpzfzZI7TkGJ5As4WY5II7GkT/2iUB Ncew== 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=1/ZYbKC1vGgZE1BA3Tspg2CNzoko2Lfnld2SAuNh8Lk=; b=oIXIcc2+IAfWzpJWRy9CmKY10EoVF3lTOJnQmIVYEf4IOuKZtL1tkbsZwOKAITP16z M4PRmrzneXfH0zcUPA+/7FWiEUduuSAmvplrhvIopa+EygeFdlEarsAwirxTTCIy4X/1 MeNiCSdzqAKL65vmaq9HFejo9fjMe4+LeGY5vc+2DGWEJQKCy1Ygb7Bg0S1nJWkJP6/y kkL4E4yYDQImJMmvokqGPbnxR1DBAEB+MGpFet/61GrAXxUci0iVW6srXrkGerDkEGXh exnKRj7kLccDKTm4fahaI7bgTgY2tR5c90ySrt2ySvGW3mCgbakm5gaLC4n60SDqLKcu Fxbg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4T65YIcv+JRaIISXbr1+fGFAW1d1HkWrrDb+8HsczXVF49/FO kl2xmaps+sEDwvW+DGd1zpM1U6t0lhFnX7+fwwJJRbBQ1rnUJA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzfMrjHG5nSnsSLDdB6URUnPZiKCVpw0K4iG9cOw2WGooC3ZDl+36BNCJKc0ayX4t3YzvX6lGpaYfTahVCWjJM= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f895:: with SMTP id h21mr1892198vso.2.1551809738935; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 10:15:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Matthew Miller Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:15:27 -0700 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003fa36505835cdceb" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Call for Topics - IETF 104 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, 05 Mar 2019 18:15:43 -0000 --0000000000003fa36505835cdceb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello All, This is a call for topics for the COSE session currently scheduled for Tuesday Morning I (03-26 @ 9:00 CET). Please submit to < cose-chairs@ietf.org > and/or this list before Monday (03-11) topics you feel need discussion. Note that you will be asked to present on the topics you submit. As of right now, the chairs believe we have the following: * countersignature issues (Jim) * hash algorithms (Jim?) * x509 issues? (??) We will have a draft agenda in time for the deadline on 03-13. Thank you, - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE WG chairs --0000000000003fa36505835cdceb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
He= llo All,

This is a call for topics for the COSE se= ssion currently scheduled for Tuesday Morning I (03-26 @ 9:00 CET).

Please submit to < cose-chairs@ietf.org > and/or this list before Monday (03-= 11) topics you feel need discussion.=C2=A0 Note that you will be asked to p= resent on the topics you submit.

As of right= now, the chairs believe we have the following:

* = countersignature issues (Jim)
* hash algorithms (Jim?)
= * x509 issues? (??)

We will have a draft agenda in= time for the deadline on 03-13.


Th= ank you,

- Ivaylo and Matthew
COSE WG ch= airs

--0000000000003fa36505835cdceb-- From nobody Tue Mar 5 10:37:57 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 AFD8912950A for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (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 IUWuCuH4FYDo for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:37:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM06-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr650134.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.65.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE07E128701 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:37:52 -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=7nqLoH0xJ/e3bSVyP5Cy7hhqvbwKbYr/czjUPdxbZhI=; b=HIPEayl3J0TEG3BwkzC9O0eheQcE8wAu/7DzZBertiGAeRN2fHDX1ImhGXkrhbcXe1zJDdNg+WMF+3Y9qibN14KEa5OmNBSxEvAOMktnnIGim1sDxDsD1tK1LzhwRjAXztL3qbEP12A/NMe4Crf/H27w48mm/1koGukLUMNW4/0= Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.19.158) by BL0PR00MB0386.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.20.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1720.0; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:37:51 +0000 Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b0eb:33e5:4f2e:a290]) by BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b0eb:33e5:4f2e:a290%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1724.000; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:37:50 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: Matthew Miller , cose Thread-Topic: [COSE] Call for Topics - IETF 104 Thread-Index: AQHU03924p6s2xQOsEi2NLRNz+ZpM6X9XeHA Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:37:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [12.219.195.2] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 07093081-4d92-4119-a2f1-08d6a199ac28 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:BL0PR00MB0386; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR00MB0386: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 0967749BC1 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(53754006)(189003)(199004)(6246003)(8936002)(86362001)(2906002)(53936002)(476003)(256004)(66066001)(11346002)(236005)(446003)(10290500003)(486006)(6306002)(54896002)(74316002)(105586002)(3846002)(52536013)(71190400001)(86612001)(25786009)(71200400001)(790700001)(106356001)(6116002)(9686003)(5660300002)(102836004)(97736004)(229853002)(14454004)(81166006)(478600001)(81156014)(8676002)(6506007)(186003)(6346003)(7696005)(53546011)(76176011)(68736007)(6436002)(10090500001)(26005)(4744005)(55016002)(7736002)(8990500004)(72206003)(22452003)(33656002)(110136005)(316002)(99286004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR00MB0386; 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: cQIhk5yT6Wp0rseQP8m3tx2CG4NqIyZNFSAUPbA/+Yd55htG/I3bY/N4GQGAS46la3HfGrqk9jMIl1nCwDzixZlPu17FFqVb3+KIuPe/aHY6tUtDS9CAa4unIHm/ABAg4zdiTtXhICmb2OvWLFmycdGonqW5BtZxP3bJmZ1UrTUOgtDnMMx4czR39j+p36BJfyUkAzjQ45cbJJ1egY6OEBah8prxXsb99MnwWFnsSiUWlVPhItCbIveMgHdvEW6f7JfqZ35S49iQiMNelnHaz5TDm0ae74DWXCY0b3k+bxWNPoJcroCa2yCdkc+slNqFcy+qAs7QEibdat4lTMarjZrKDFgdJPFxxrnO7eCEpd3x1C/85+USyvgmzIMQeUwtrrOn1/H56O3wyFVVXCi7QGW+kxkDswdNP5sb1R3mQlc= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BL0PR00MB029254D314628A413A9AAA29F5720BL0PR00MB0292namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 07093081-4d92-4119-a2f1-08d6a199ac28 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Mar 2019 18:37:50.8747 (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: BL0PR00MB0386 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Topics - IETF 104 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, 05 Mar 2019 18:37:56 -0000 --_000_BL0PR00MB029254D314628A413A9AAA29F5720BL0PR00MB0292namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBhbSBub3cgY29tcGxldGluZyBhbiBBZGRpdGlvbmFsIEFsZ29yaXRobXMgZHJhZnQgYmFzZWQg b24gdGhlIFdlYkF1dGhuIGFuZCBGSURPIHVzYWdlLCBhcyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGNoYXJ0 ZXIuICBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdGltZSB0byBkaXNjdXNzIHRoYXQgaW4gUHJhZ3VlLg0KDQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgVGhhbmtz LA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IC0tIE1pa2UNCg0KRnJvbTogQ09TRSA8Y29zZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPiBPbiBCZWhhbGYg T2YgTWF0dGhldyBNaWxsZXINClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIE1hcmNoIDUsIDIwMTkgMTA6MTUgQU0N ClRvOiBjb3NlIDxjb3NlQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU3ViamVjdDogW0NPU0VdIENhbGwgZm9yIFRvcGlj cyAtIElFVEYgMTA0DQoNCkhlbGxvIEFsbCwNCg0KVGhpcyBpcyBhIGNhbGwgZm9yIHRvcGljcyBm b3IgdGhlIENPU0Ugc2Vzc2lvbiBjdXJyZW50bHkgc2NoZWR1bGVkIGZvciBUdWVzZGF5IE1vcm5p bmcgSSAoMDMtMjYgQCA5OjAwIENFVCkuDQoNClBsZWFzZSBzdWJtaXQgdG8gPCBjb3NlLWNoYWly c0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86Y29zZS1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+ID4gYW5kL29yIHRoaXMgbGlz dCBiZWZvcmUgTW9uZGF5ICgwMy0xMSkgdG9waWNzIHlvdSBmZWVsIG5lZWQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4g IE5vdGUgdGhhdCB5b3Ugd2lsbCBiZSBhc2tlZCB0byBwcmVzZW50IG9uIHRoZSB0b3BpY3MgeW91 IHN1Ym1pdC4NCg0KQXMgb2YgcmlnaHQgbm93LCB0aGUgY2hhaXJzIGJlbGlldmUgd2UgaGF2ZSB0 aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KDQoqIGNvdW50ZXJzaWduYXR1cmUgaXNzdWVzIChKaW0pDQoqIGhhc2gg YWxnb3JpdGhtcyAoSmltPykNCiogeDUwOSBpc3N1ZXM/ICg/PykNCg0KV2Ugd2lsbCBoYXZlIGEg ZHJhZnQgYWdlbmRhIGluIHRpbWUgZm9yIHRoZSBkZWFkbGluZSBvbiAwMy0xMy4NCg0KDQpUaGFu ayB5b3UsDQoNCi0gSXZheWxvIGFuZCBNYXR0aGV3DQpDT1NFIFdHIGNoYWlycw0KDQo= --_000_BL0PR00MB029254D314628A413A9AAA29F5720BL0PR00MB0292namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAy IDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjt9DQph OmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xv cjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFuLk1z b0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpwdXJw bGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpwLm1zb25vcm1hbDAsIGxpLm1zb25v cm1hbDAsIGRpdi5tc29ub3JtYWwwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOm1zb25vcm1hbDsNCgltc28t bWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90 dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJe21z by1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5z LXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMwMDIwNjA7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5 cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0KQHBh Z2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAxLjBp biAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30N Ci0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6 ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0KPC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBn dGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2 OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0t LT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxl Ij4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzAwMjA2MCI+SSBhbSBub3cgY29tcGxldGluZyBhbiBBZGRpdGlvbmFs IEFsZ29yaXRobXMgZHJhZnQgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIFdlYkF1dGhuIGFuZCBGSURPIHVzYWdlLCBh cyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIuJm5ic3A7IEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0aW1lIHRvIGRp c2N1c3MgdGhhdCBpbiBQcmFndWUuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiMwMDIwNjAiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjojMDAyMDYw Ij4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgVGhhbmtzLDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjoj MDAyMDYwIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgLS0gTWlrZTxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJj b2xvcjojMDAyMDYwIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48Yj5Gcm9tOjwvYj4gQ09TRSAmbHQ7Y29zZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnJmd0OyA8 Yj5PbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgPC9iPg0KTWF0dGhldyBNaWxsZXI8YnI+DQo8Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gVHVl c2RheSwgTWFyY2ggNSwgMjAxOSAxMDoxNSBBTTxicj4NCjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gY29zZSAmbHQ7Y29z ZUBpZXRmLm9yZyZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gW0NPU0VdIENhbGwgZm9yIFRvcGlj cyAtIElFVEYgMTA0PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5IZWxsbyBB bGwsPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PlRoaXMgaXMgYSBjYWxsIGZvciB0b3BpY3MgZm9yIHRoZSBDT1NFIHNlc3Npb24gY3VycmVudGx5 IHNjaGVkdWxlZCBmb3IgVHVlc2RheSBNb3JuaW5nIEkgKDAzLTI2IEAgOTowMCBDRVQpLjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJz cDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ UGxlYXNlIHN1Ym1pdCB0byAmbHQ7IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpjb3NlLWNoYWlyc0BpZXRmLm9y ZyI+Y29zZS1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+ICZndDsgYW5kL29yIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBiZWZvcmUg TW9uZGF5ICgwMy0xMSkgdG9waWNzIHlvdSBmZWVsIG5lZWQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4mbmJzcDsgTm90 ZSB0aGF0IHlvdSB3aWxsIGJlIGFza2VkIHRvIHByZXNlbnQgb24gdGhlIHRvcGljcyB5b3Ugc3Vi bWl0LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPkFzIG9mIHJpZ2h0IG5vdywgdGhlIGNoYWlycyBiZWxpZXZlIHdlIGhhdmUgdGhl IGZvbGxvd2luZzo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+KiBjb3VudGVyc2lnbmF0dXJlIGlzc3VlcyAoSmltKTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+KiBoYXNoIGFsZ29yaXRobXMgKEpp bT8pPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4q IHg1MDkgaXNzdWVzPyAoPz8pPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPldlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBhIGRyYWZ0IGFnZW5kYSBpbiB0aW1lIGZvciB0 aGUgZGVhZGxpbmUgb24gMDMtMTMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+VGhhbmsgeW91LDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4tIEl2YXlsbyBhbmQgTWF0dGhldzxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+Q09TRSBXRyBjaGFp cnM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9k eT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_BL0PR00MB029254D314628A413A9AAA29F5720BL0PR00MB0292namp_-- From nobody Wed Mar 6 06:46:59 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 48AA4127287; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 06:46:49 -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: 6.93.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155188360925.5189.743279041715733158@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 06:46:49 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:46:49 -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 : Use of the Hash-based Signature Algorithm with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Author : Russ Housley Filename : draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2019-03-06 Abstract: This document specifies the conventions for using the HSS/LMS hash- based signature algorithm with the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) syntax. The HSS/LMS algorithm is one form of hash-based digital signature; it is described in [HASHSIG]. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-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 Wed Mar 6 06:59:03 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 3BB4E127287 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 06:59:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 bBd0hKlCYZZR for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 06:59:00 -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 D2B1A124BA8 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 06:59:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D1B300AAF for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:40:43 -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 Q_srgCdIvXjI for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:40:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.27.4.75] (unknown [75.104.69.145]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CB673009FB; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:40:38 -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: <00ea01d4c5c0$ac81d6d0$05858470$@augustcellars.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:58:49 -0500 Cc: cose Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <00ea01d4c5c0$ac81d6d0$05858470$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:59:02 -0000 Jim: I have updated the I-D, and I just posted it. I also updated the GitHub = repository. I think that all of your comments are resolved by the = update. Of course, the first comment actually has nothing to do with = this I-D, so I have not done anything with that. Russ > On Feb 16, 2019, at 1:27 AM, Jim Schaad = wrote: >=20 > Russ, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 2. The following statement seems a bit weird: "The hash-based = signature > algorithm supports five values for this parameter: h=3D5; h=3D10; = h=3D15; h=3D20; > and h=3D25". Would it not be better to say it along the lines of = "Currently > there are five values registered for this parameter:..." >=20 > 3. You do not seem to have consistency between section 4 and the IANA > considerations wrt 'HSS-LMS' vs 'HASHSIG-HSS-LMS' >=20 > 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. >=20 > Jim From nobody Sun Mar 10 12:12:41 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 78ABE127873 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:12:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=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 jrfP1uUmIxmW for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vs1-xe34.google.com (mail-vs1-xe34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e34]) (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 142561200ED for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe34.google.com with SMTP id m20so1457169vsq.8 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vgDe8wlFXaJW/vPuavveduGSd7zGVJNL83/ITV2vJug=; b=hvU0Uk2zLzOsAVADFefaJFhKQFqIpNp5KbMPlpPVvUD0jue8zTnRekP8+wVzkSFpma dze8PxqPRYBuoOVhXYm9h9vDj0gmtP3txRlcnf/upmp5TGirf3bxgqZ9ar20vPqgwV+9 Oloe79VI03xx73c8vm15OEG6JcoVkgVa7wjXgdj9+EAGbZQZALg73K0FJ5WQA8p0dJS9 CU4LOyaFXGRzxC3DdwEJgzZa8+ETzfL3/LgVLY1onXvQGuR/L2CfGK4B4LlP3nsF9scH HKn131Yu4ELAh8OVyB7PT8MTELqZF/uRqLEPLYUy5LUUSWZivTO0p3H+KZuVlDtHZctW bfKQ== 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; bh=vgDe8wlFXaJW/vPuavveduGSd7zGVJNL83/ITV2vJug=; b=OtRDFZD8wMSQU7cZKAx4mZoZuq9pJWc2H0veOJMnR9F4K44X4fhPg3Rm/9Sn8enckB DDGb6KNvEit8CQOMPsD8IMdPnef9YHXr5rMFZrmNjY4sQMZyOLer6AMQSaamDdsksk63 /ktI+c41SDGeiJpRws9xnCH4pplIXqPCvXXdcdkXgmdS3+f1iX3cXl9pOtDMz4EU34tI +L17M9GPGn7jQWPNn//c8k8mz2yPtIX+eW4WKOFRkUHhDw+IL2Lq1/WSsRpBqmHSl/uv He0SRvbTGHcnuk+qhloAIJoiWwgXPunoWELD70iHn35N77f8vOfmoMT4ybkd2zqasNhB VSnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUol5sCsp3M6SX5ZuF1TRtGiibg5dyVaPi0LTHVwfHSx8X9qrkr vUK+wMQbyHZLytdZZIHuP6wbGdNr/h5pQJqAW0ZcLbHcgtVSVw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzjDcgOtRaoIOgZspGsLN67sauWb27VVEqC620aSVe2sEPPMylsEawqB+t0VfwawgksY88wz7St3tgtCf+dqJw= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f250:: with SMTP id y16mr15059394vsm.25.1552245156770; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:12:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Matthew Miller Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:12:25 -0600 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002c8e000583c23d97" 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: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:12:40 -0000 --0000000000002c8e000583c23d97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thank you all that responded. We see consensus to adopt the standalone hash algorithms draft (embodied in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01). Jim, please submit draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs at your convenience. - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE WG Chairs On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:15 PM Matthew A. Miller < linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net> wrote: > 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 > > --0000000000002c8e000583c23d97 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you all that responded.=C2=A0 = We see consensus to adopt the standalone hash algorithms draft (embodied in= htt= ps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-hash-algs-01).
Jim, please submit draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs at your convenienc= e.


- Ivaylo and Matthew
C= OSE WG Chairs



On Mon, Feb 25,= 2019 at 5:15 PM Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net> wrote:
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.=C2=A0 If the worki= ng
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.=C2=A0 If you do not support this, plea= se
indicate why not.


- Ivaylo and Matthew
COSE Chairs

--0000000000002c8e000583c23d97-- From nobody Sun Mar 10 20:09:36 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 17B63130EAA for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:09:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ARS28HqbKwJQ for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78C911277D2 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3E5B8B82C24; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:09:30 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf@augustcellars.com, kaduk@mit.edu, ekr@rtfm.com, ivaylo@ackl.io, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: ietf@augustcellars.com, cose@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20190311030930.3E5B8B82C24@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5650) 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 Mar 2019 03:09:34 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8152, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5650 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Jim Schaad Section: Section 13.2 Original Text ------------- | crv | 1 | -1 | int / | EC identifier - Taken from the | | | | | tstr | "COSE Key Common Parameters" | | | | | | registry | Corrected Text -------------- | crv | 1 | -1 | int / | EC identifier - Taken from the | | | | | tstr | "COSE Elliptic Curves" registry | Notes ----- The set of curve identifiers lives in the COSE Elliptic Curves registry and not in the COSE Key Common Parameters registry. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) -------------------------------------- Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : J. Schaad Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Sun Mar 10 20:17:37 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 54BFE130EB2; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:17:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTHjaBscxSAd; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3B67130EAE; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 49516B82C50; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:17:25 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf@augustcellars.com, ietf@augustcellars.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: kaduk@mit.edu, iesg@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20190311031725.49516B82C50@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] [Errata Verified] RFC8152 (5650) 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 Mar 2019 03:17:30 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC8152, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5650 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Jim Schaad Date Reported: 2019-03-11 Verified by: Benjamin Kaduk (IESG) Section: Section 13.2 Original Text ------------- | crv | 1 | -1 | int / | EC identifier - Taken from the | | | | | tstr | "COSE Key Common Parameters" | | | | | | registry | Corrected Text -------------- | crv | 1 | -1 | int / | EC identifier - Taken from the | | | | | tstr | "COSE Elliptic Curves" registry | Notes ----- The set of curve identifiers lives in the COSE Elliptic Curves registry and not in the COSE Key Common Parameters registry. -------------------------------------- RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) -------------------------------------- Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : J. Schaad Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Mon Mar 11 12:05:25 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 1D7A212426A; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:05:23 -0700 (PDT) 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: 6.93.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155233112308.23161.16681137030944727672@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:05:23 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-x509-01.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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:05:23 -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): Headers for carrying and referencing X.509 certificates Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-x509-01.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2019-03-11 Abstract: The CBOR Signing And Encrypted Message (COSE) structure syntax uses the COSE Key structure for placing keys in a message. This document extends the way that keys can be identified and transported by providing attributes that refer to or contain X.509 certificates. Contributing to this document The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be submitted as pull requests at . Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to be discussed on the COSE mailing list. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-x509/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 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 Mon Mar 11 12:05:53 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 F0286131155; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:05:39 -0700 (PDT) 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: 6.93.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155233113992.23062.9220353975640783078@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:05:39 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-02.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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:05:46 -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): Initial Algorithms Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-02.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2019-03-11 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.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. This document along with [I-D.ietf-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-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-02 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 Mon Mar 11 12:10:01 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 5A3D9131023; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:09:59 -0700 (PDT) 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: 6.93.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155233139934.23054.12099206823121732280@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:09:59 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-02.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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:09:59 -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 CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-02.txt Pages : 84 Date : 2019-03-11 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-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-02 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 Mon Mar 11 12:13:02 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 110C7131176; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:13:00 -0700 (PDT) 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: 6.93.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155233158002.23211.18008010366678299327@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:13:00 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-00.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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:13:00 -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): Hash Algorithms Author : Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-00.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2019-03-11 Abstract: The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) syntax [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] does not define any direct methods for using hash algorithms. There are however circumstances where hash algorithms are used: Indirect signatures where the hash of one or more contents are signed. X.509 certificate or other object identification by the use of a thumbprint. This document defines a set of hash algorithms that are identified by COSE Algorithm Identifiers. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-00 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 Mon Mar 11 15:02:49 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 9B0BC131224 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT) 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (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 tZXJ2nUiVM63 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr640118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.64.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96FFD131211 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:02:38 -0700 (PDT) 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=5ja81KwLHZhV4KxtiJ/FidthJ1X80k0LPXUg77y00aM=; b=d9Vx8eyNqo6aAUUdEizaeaVq3XHsOS4FXfNTc8UkTedS4KUOBZt8E/WO3SIiFHQR1HJA6qL0q9/NC/m2yrV+E7MxIr/Q2mR7Nt57jKqXBQa3ET3S9YKUAYbS2GTwZ2ausXQ0cNcYkcCyetuI3Yuzu+D0/ZPNGN+oeQlA06KWISk= Received: from MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.148.29) by MW2PR00MB0395.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.148.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1739.0; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:02:36 +0000 Received: from MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1139:4bca:cb25:30ed]) by MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1139:4bca:cb25:30ed%8]) with mapi id 15.20.1742.000; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:02:36 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: "cose@ietf.org" CC: Matthew Miller Thread-Topic: Additional COSE algorithms used by W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) Thread-Index: AdTYU+Cb3yek7mBcS0mI3faxkTWEnA== Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:02:36 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:2:ad71:55a4:d42:5659] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f66835bf-827b-41a8-14aa-08d6a66d4580 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:MW2PR00MB0395; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MW2PR00MB0395: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 10 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 09730BD177 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(209900001)(199004)(189003)(236005)(22452003)(316002)(99286004)(6506007)(966005)(6306002)(97736004)(102836004)(55016002)(86362001)(6436002)(54896002)(52536013)(606006)(14454004)(72206003)(53936002)(53376002)(8936002)(6346003)(71200400001)(71190400001)(7696005)(81156014)(8676002)(14444005)(7736002)(6916009)(5640700003)(9686003)(256004)(1730700003)(2906002)(81166006)(186003)(74316002)(25786009)(476003)(486006)(33656002)(21615005)(6116002)(8990500004)(4326008)(10290500003)(86612001)(790700001)(68736007)(5660300002)(46003)(105586002)(2351001)(106356001)(4744005)(2501003)(10090500001)(478600001)(6606295002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MW2PR00MB0395; H:MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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: P4OGV27IikhZyqjuJnr4I0HJpenr3/jdyv6ONKn8VAsOFBMRaBPGwdhRGiAlql2M8ZX5kBuwqvtqvIDU+1d3S02AjA1ScxvpF8l+aecYRbvDgGYKUDAyH1lelXcrK4X07B/O7WqrCLnE2SOnTf1Xc5KnyPDU4RVXEdudp73GpM6k2hRl66aLn9zmpySxACGVCNLFdOMluLaREvFaPD3g+rHhUkgT9htwDs6/zGsPNde3EBzJMQx3UxI8zYtselnxvbUT12XxlJXHLQI1DOYce3m4BEhkjJ4+tdR5Y/HB72n6RscbA6T+b7LlSj6x7eTUB0a50P8GPQchYa39QT4UtfF8q7SaVfOofzoWZvwmSqaCaHYk0F4dGI3AVkvpvDlr6KSTaq6roYdeoXCHRuKT5grgc4zSqkdIay863JpNZhc= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MW2PR00MB0298E7A6A0510B34D3433EA3F5480MW2PR00MB0298namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f66835bf-827b-41a8-14aa-08d6a66d4580 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Mar 2019 22:02:36.5052 (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: MW2PR00MB0395 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Additional COSE algorithms used by W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) 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 Mar 2019 22:02:49 -0000 --_000_MW2PR00MB0298E7A6A0510B34D3433EA3F5480MW2PR00MB0298namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The new COSE working group charter includes this deliverable: 4. Define the algorithms needed for W3C Web Authentication for COSE using draft-jones-webauthn-co= se-algorithms and draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a starting point (Informational). I have written draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms, which combines these= starting points into a single draft, which registers these algorithms in t= he IANA COSE registries. = When not already registered, this draft also registers these algorithms fo= r use with JOSE in the IANA JOSE registries. I believe that this draft is ready for working group a= doption to satisfy this deliverable. The specification is available at: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 An HTML-formatted version is also available at: * http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-0= 0.html -- Mike P.S. This notice as also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=3D1957 and a= s @selfissued. --_000_MW2PR00MB0298E7A6A0510B34D3433EA3F5480MW2PR00MB0298namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The new COSE working group charter includes this deliverable:

 

4. Define the algorithms = needed for W3C Web Aut= hentication for COSE using draft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms and draf= t-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a starting point (Informational).

 

I have written draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithm= s, which combines these starting points into a single draft, which register= s these algorithms in the IANA COSE regi= stries.  When not already registered, this draft also registers th= ese algorithms for use with JOSE in the IANA JOSE regi= stries.  I believe that this draft is ready for working group adop= tion to satisfy this deliverable.

 

The specification is available at:

 

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:=

 

        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     -- Mike

 

P.S.  This notice as also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=3D1957 and as @selfissued.

 

--_000_MW2PR00MB0298E7A6A0510B34D3433EA3F5480MW2PR00MB0298namp_-- From nobody Tue Mar 12 16:14:09 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 CE825131197 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=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 HuUloWuqQYoG for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vs1-xe32.google.com (mail-vs1-xe32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e32]) (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 CC554131161 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe32.google.com with SMTP id h7so2711287vsl.1 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:14:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rVgIcOalHnS7i3Fu+R4VC6DzkyNuXmt6b9ugXA8BsaU=; b=FdyuFBpur/5atLeXgjH7St7fZA4YRqLymn1sVuYSFJee3gPUEhWGrqS5oFM2TpFec2 lVCpXZXPXKRNV47hja2UjRC7ponbmNK24JVeHQhw/5pNC8efqS4ySI4TCdzm0e8VVRgg KnJe0kPJTBEi+TZgnpCSKRbHTB3tXdCI5TsAdOdUuUcRIQ1xukwvLTrFJ0t7Gc9bgbyM 8SYOjoQsBpFdxwGupOecNAZaFJs5qAeWoo4zQWFD+snMgf90gBHRVBT2tfTmSe26Zrsv sz/6QdPGFAbzs54Q1Z4BU5cGJOklt8k5RQVut2e0qhnrWkC5h/ZE18La/CVUmkVQyW4R SpPQ== 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=rVgIcOalHnS7i3Fu+R4VC6DzkyNuXmt6b9ugXA8BsaU=; b=t8YP0QfJrL9AEleQTxB4HOG2uP1QdLTfckNjuqXLFiIcphA7WOi7pI9JJ7NSo4c9Fx OgDeSYgdEu6I+VVo3hojORcAHCkGYfbIcuTOgiADjxJ3zAZNLX6ne9gIdeJX+a2m0d5M T6nB7QGXfzV6ixi9RUcWhc1DC32gGjbzfsmgRk6VIKhVwJ2SPFaEAYQ5/+SwllGtgflg h+oLToDuCv17D2pzKAZlFIjchh1mKB+ETfiWZnxymJsgFt5N67WvRHlF7LOJpmMXYIxS mfYJLLp1wM2Uw9NjFC6NwNhNk+RKO/sJL4c2+SiOR2k5nLQ41s7rjc8itW+MnpIrphYZ lszw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPzinCaWgvfXaUQeYylKy6rNG3oALVQcIFf9f8PiPyMIiDas2w VOYYCnFsQ001E9o8+N3Q5ujTz9Q0Q0tj+PIqeKgyPV0qZvgx8g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw9V4c/G7tribKCuwJ7RfCheIbxCkE8vSbaHgOouZCDwraI2bvqqsHKEShQby3FAzvPw82cd/s56ufv/SABm/8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f250:: with SMTP id y16mr21439191vsm.25.1552432440675; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:14:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Matthew Miller Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:13:50 -0600 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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, 12 Mar 2019 23:14:09 -0000 Hello COSE Working Group, This begins the call for adoption of < draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a working group item: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it is finished, only that it is acceptable as a starting point. Please respond to this list if you support adopting the document. If you do not support adoption, please indicate why not. This call will run for approximately two weeks, ending March 26. Thank you, - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE Working Group Chairs From nobody Tue Mar 12 16:17:26 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 48DB41278CF for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:17:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.99 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bJAi57QhXxNc for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam06on071f.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe56::71f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB04F1200D7 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:17:21 -0700 (PDT) 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=VjhvpycjarzfCypuqMm3g4R2wqCvL4U0P12HoB/P7qE=; b=b7RSQln6iS2CLWTnnrNOukvKViWxYsCqTK7WzqlRUtZ6CVLu7Pn5T64PUG1/+rRkOEYi1gOkMN8+1xBmsUJYigi0xGLj/HNFYoJ8g/w/bxITAGdGODAKJUSrLDAuK4YNyAORLgYPtyhw83U+SXRg8si8iiw/raMnURjNDdTBpYw= Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.19.158) by BL0PR00MB0403.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.20.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1745.0; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:17:19 +0000 Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b0eb:33e5:4f2e:a290]) by BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b0eb:33e5:4f2e:a290%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1745.000; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:17:19 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: Matthew Miller , cose Thread-Topic: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms Thread-Index: AQHU2SlceWTze16Ws0Gcq3MPF9Fp5qYIoMdw Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:17:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:2:c06d:248a:d61e:1ca6] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b5dac9ef-570b-4ae9-b8f2-08d6a740dfc9 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:BL0PR00MB0403; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR00MB0403: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 5 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882; x-forefront-prvs: 09749A275C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(74316002)(186003)(76176011)(7696005)(68736007)(10090500001)(46003)(606006)(71200400001)(97736004)(6246003)(99286004)(71190400001)(8990500004)(9686003)(6306002)(14454004)(54896002)(55016002)(53936002)(2906002)(236005)(53546011)(25786009)(86612001)(102836004)(6346003)(229853002)(52536013)(6506007)(6436002)(966005)(790700001)(6116002)(5660300002)(86362001)(7736002)(105586002)(10290500003)(8676002)(72206003)(106356001)(446003)(486006)(11346002)(476003)(478600001)(256004)(81166006)(22452003)(8936002)(316002)(33656002)(14444005)(110136005)(81156014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR00MB0403; 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: gtgZXO7URMT82byMc5EicBGS1bLbWDMw0qdAUaGsUfn9Tq3IbODtVK+4ZOwDEveKL/nmGBLSPB0rLR3vvtMU2QXc2sKGK3aNVpnqq9E8eA1xTH3p99+y2xgaK7+VXO+8M8Truc0ZronC6gb4EN+QkLHranWtVlGuRrwTXFilMoHWYBFWT5yvgSrsQmeVSazCSPU364PDlzZ7wh1o9EzFg2c2rsA8Bvm3pqkR3pi9SNrEYXgJhvFWUsegIQbP3Pxsn8e3ixEF7TlCwtpfympnNjQdV9V6MuhB8K7OHWdmlglIseIjtbYAfPvNJSrAWmFTN7qOKJ0bPJIeVW1rVAbSXCKqA20SnwbPgutTZk9CqGda25PCOYu3CVj57DjKisrwuMD1Stlg+2nmqdUNajKOKyuwpSk384IU4vZ8UQgesXY= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BL0PR00MB02927C2F83604B05F011CD45F5490BL0PR00MB0292namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b5dac9ef-570b-4ae9-b8f2-08d6a740dfc9 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Mar 2019 23:17:19.2181 (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: BL0PR00MB0403 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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, 12 Mar 2019 23:17:24 -0000 --_000_BL0PR00MB02927C2F83604B05F011CD45F5490BL0PR00MB0292namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support adoption of this document to fulfill this chartered deliverable: 4. Define the algorithms needed for W3C Web Authentication for COSE using d= raft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms and draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a= starting point (Informational). -- Mike -----Original Message----- From: COSE On Behalf Of Matthew Miller Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 4:14 PM To: cose Subject: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms Hello COSE Working Group, This begins the call for adoption of < draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a working group item: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it is finished, only that it = is acceptable as a starting point. Please respond to this list if you support adopting the document. If you d= o not support adoption, please indicate why not. This call will run for approximately two weeks, ending March 26. Thank you, - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE Working Group Chairs _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose --_000_BL0PR00MB02927C2F83604B05F011CD45F5490BL0PR00MB0292namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support adoption of this document to fulfill th= is chartered deliverable:

 

4. Define the algorith= ms needed for W3C Web Authentication for COSE using draft-jones-webauthn-co= se-algorithms and draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a starting point (Infor= mational).

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     -- Mike

 

-----Original Message-----
From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Matthew Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 4:14 PM
To: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Subject: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms

 

Hello COSE Working Group,

 

This begins the call for adoption of <

draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a = working group item:

 

* https://tools.ietf.or= g/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00

 

As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it = is finished, only that it is acceptable as a starting point.

 

Please respond to this list if you support adopti= ng the document.  If you do not support adoption, please indicate why = not.

 

This call will run for approximately two weeks, e= nding March 26.

 

 

Thank you,

 

- Ivaylo and Matthew

COSE Working Group Chairs

 

_______________________________________________

COSE mailing list

COSE@ietf.org

https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

--_000_BL0PR00MB02927C2F83604B05F011CD45F5490BL0PR00MB0292namp_-- From nobody Tue Mar 12 21:02:41 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 F3CC812788C; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXcQCGWCwnAu; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44CF0127970; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:02:30 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: CC: 'cose' Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:02:26 -0700 Message-ID: <00ca01d4d951$93f2ac80$bbd80580$@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: AdTZRiLjWoUfKGT9RqWhTMHrblua1A== Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Review of draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-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: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 04:02:40 -0000 Here is a first pass review: 1. I was surprised that there are two algorithms still in the WebAuthn document that are not included here. Is that intentional and what is the plan forward for them? 2. The title of the document is not descriptive in terms of a stand alone sentence on what this document is doing. It should be more specific on the algorithms. 3. Abstract: A list of the algorithms being processed in this document would be reasonable. Based on the current text, the abstract would need to be re-written as soon as the algorithms are registered because they would then be registered and thus the specification is not necessary. It would also be slightly odd in the event that the CTAP or WebAuthn protocols are updated to add new algorithms as they would not be in this document. (See issue #1.) 4. Section 1: See abstract comment. 5. Section 2: The recommended column needs to be added to the table. 6. Section 2: The discussion on what is and is not recommended and why belongs in this section not in the security considerations. 7. Section 2: You are missing some checks that should be done on signing and verification. Look at the standard text at the end of sections in RFC 8152 for a pattern. You might also want to add a check on lengths of keys both for a maximum and a minimum length. 8. Section 3: This should not be the first use of JOSE and COSE and therefore the expansions here make no sense. That should be in the introduction. 9. Section 3.1: I have only rarely seen this curve as P-256K, it is almost always referred to as secp256k1. I would ask that this be changed in the COSE representation. I am agnostic about what should be in the JOSE representation. 10. Section 3.1: I don't understand the reason for the last paragraph in the section. It seems to me that this should just refer to all of the items defined for EC2 in COSE. 11. Section 3.1: Is there a recommendation on using compressed vs non-compressed points? 12. Section 3.1: You need to talk about if this is going to be IETF recommended or not. (And why) 13. Section 3.2: I don't understand what this section is doing. If you are really defining a new signature algorithm, then that should be noted as part of the requirements in section 3.1 on the key. If you are not defining a new signature algorithm then this section makes zero sense. (You are not saying what the hash algorithm is.) Both options are reasonable. 14. Section 3.2: If this is a new signature algorithm then it should say what curves it operates with. Else there should be an addition of the algorithms that are legal in section 3.1 15. Section 4.1 - The correct term is 'provisional' not 'temporary'. 16. Section 5.4 - So if somebody changes the crv value, is there any way to tell the difference? If so then that should be described here. 17. Section 5.3 - This text seems to be self-contradictory. If you MUST NOT use it, then how can you then use it? How does an implementation know when it is or is not acceptable practice to use this? 18. CHAIRS: You should run the fact that this document is updating JOSE registries as well and make sure that there are going to be no surprises about this being not in charter. Jim From nobody Wed Mar 13 13:11:05 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 BF9DD124D68; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:11:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 29KzPtrXxYmw; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr650126.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.65.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA75A130E66; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:11:01 -0700 (PDT) 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=uN6/r5K8FgrIUbMwPp0+XXTNq2KzDDYweTSmeIOkhBU=; b=HxYhbGx19+XWQ7Hpj2X2hSOHVk0Fu1q9U+ZlXLoodxiM/nltuFDTYYgf88p81U7ij9Hv6q+6XmCL6e9/CfWWJzxYizIxmVMTAEZeUL6WmI8OE7CU4BQwNmd+gVsYNS0rZldU0SQ8OTatlb86ghBR9JgcOesUjJ+M/+obyK7yxbE= Received: from MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.148.29) by MW2PR00MB0316.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.148.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1747.0; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:10:59 +0000 Received: from MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1139:4bca:cb25:30ed]) by MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1139:4bca:cb25:30ed%8]) with mapi id 15.20.1747.000; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:10:59 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: Jim Schaad , "draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms@ietf.org" CC: 'cose' Thread-Topic: Review of draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 Thread-Index: AdTZRiLjWoUfKGT9RqWhTMHrblua1AAj4Tfw Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:10:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <00ca01d4d951$93f2ac80$bbd80580$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: <00ca01d4d951$93f2ac80$bbd80580$@augustcellars.com> 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_ActionId=915c8ceb-25c3-45aa-a7f0-000057813ba7; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Name=Internal; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SetDate=2019-03-13T19:47:57-0800; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47; x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:a:b074:2c99:4ff1:2f30] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 39a2f3d5-1854-4a3e-3c61-08d6a7f00264 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:MW2PR00MB0316; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MW2PR00MB0316: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 09752BC779 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(189003)(13464003)(199004)(51914003)(14454004)(14444005)(256004)(8990500004)(81166006)(81156014)(33656002)(97736004)(9686003)(55016002)(6436002)(6306002)(10290500003)(10090500001)(478600001)(68736007)(72206003)(76176011)(99286004)(7696005)(53936002)(966005)(8936002)(6506007)(102836004)(53546011)(305945005)(7736002)(6346003)(5660300002)(186003)(6246003)(22452003)(52536013)(4326008)(2501003)(316002)(11346002)(229853002)(476003)(2906002)(446003)(486006)(110136005)(46003)(6116002)(86362001)(105586002)(106356001)(86612001)(8676002)(71190400001)(25786009)(74316002)(71200400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MW2PR00MB0316; H:MW2PR00MB0298.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: 5+c/gLCyTc65kMzGvISotYpz1ZdErVmgdtRY1FPhb9Fl7fJmDQ8PB2XJbn3lb4hVbtTe3an3Zs9WRA5UJHR0SGEk0Gnt9DRR89TH3+cS6Y7xpEyu6itltnwJyo4YOtNegrmnceQom0tf7NAnMKw+jfG0/vByvMs/CZIBHO5U/XdQVr5liPODVBwpUqDCN1W4/b4fzn1jIQ4nDkVDmDlco+i01Bi2YAKVPIP12y5CDmIr3wnUTkcPlOa/AcOEvQXD+MZygn01Qsv039XcAGv4r93NUjc+GvVaqqJscWLbec8ZaPXnPCFP6sLZasv50jIHJVtLKHkMOBU4mFb7DAXw+wsBiaI0DKW5iH+vTxNbsXmaIAsryRR+oiSctbXh01MC/GEJINnt4rtBacM726z5qSXdGX6CXXpco9/xx20D//c= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 39a2f3d5-1854-4a3e-3c61-08d6a7f00264 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Mar 2019 20:10:59.2467 (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: MW2PR00MB0316 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Review of draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-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: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:11:05 -0000 Thanks for the detailed review, Jim. See my replies inline... -----Original Message----- From: Jim Schaad =20 Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:02 PM To: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms@ietf.org Cc: 'cose' Subject: Review of draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 Here is a first pass review: 1. I was surprised that there are two algorithms still in the WebAuthn doc= ument that are not included here. Is that intentional and what is the plan= forward for them? You're correct that the algorithms ED256 and ED512 in https://www.w3.org/TR= /2019/REC-webauthn-1-20190304/#sctn-cose-alg-reg aren't yet in the document= . This was a matter of time to produce the draft - not a statement that th= ey aren't important to WebAuthn. They will be added in future drafts. 2. The title of the document is not descriptive in terms of a stand alone = sentence on what this document is doing. It should be more specific on the= algorithms. Fair enough. I'll plan a title change after working group adoption (assumi= ng that happens as a result of the call for adoption). 3. Abstract: A list of the algorithms being processed in this document wo= uld be reasonable. Based on the current text, the abstract would need to b= e re-written as soon as the algorithms are registered because they would th= en be registered and thus the specification is not necessary. It would als= o be slightly odd in the event that the CTAP or WebAuthn protocols are upda= ted to add new algorithms as they would not be in this document. (See issu= e #1.) Thanks. Will revise accordingly after adoption. 4. Section 1: See abstract comment. Agreed. 5. Section 2: The recommended column needs to be added to the table. Will do. 6. Section 2: The discussion on what is and is not recommended and why be= longs in this section not in the security considerations. OK 7. Section 2: You are missing some checks that should be done on signing a= nd verification. Look at the standard text at the end of sections in RFC 8152 for a pattern. You might also want to add a check on lengths of keys = both for a maximum and a minimum length. Thanks 8. Section 3: This should not be the first use of JOSE and COSE and there= fore the expansions here make no sense. That should be in the introduction= . OK 9. Section 3.1: I have only rarely seen this curve as P-256K, it is almost= always referred to as secp256k1. I would ask that this be changed in the = COSE representation. I am agnostic about what should be in the JOSE repres= entation. I'm OK changing the string to "secp256k1" after adoption, assuming others c= oncur. 10. Section 3.1: I don't understand the reason for the last paragraph in t= he section. It seems to me that this should just refer to all of the items= defined for EC2 in COSE. Sure 11. Section 3.1: Is there a recommendation on using compressed vs non-comp= ressed points? Uncompressed should always work. I'd like to try to understand how actual = deployments are using this before commenting on whether compressed should b= e supported as well. I'll plan to ask this in Prague. 12. Section 3.1: You need to talk about if this is going to be IETF recommended or not. (And why) There was a CFRG discussion on this in June. Dan Brown isn't in love with = it but wasn't aware of specific problems with it - see https://mailarchive.= ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/N-XU09enlfMYEbl3L4IWCM5D8WQ. Richard Barnes pointed= this study of it https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/161.pdf. This is another th= ing we should discuss in Prague. 13. Section 3.2: I don't understand what this section is doing. If you a= re really defining a new signature algorithm, then that should be noted as = part of the requirements in section 3.1 on the key. If you are not definin= g a new signature algorithm then this section makes zero sense. (You are n= ot saying what the hash algorithm is.) Both options are reasonable. It's defining the algorithm identifiers. That needs to be somewhere and th= is is parallel with how it was done in JWA [RFC 7518]. 14. Section 3.2: If this is a new signature algorithm then it should say w= hat curves it operates with. Else there should be an addition of the algor= ithms that are legal in section 3.1 It's not a new algorithm. It's a new set of identifiers. I can revise to = make this clear. 15. Section 4.1 - The correct term is 'provisional' not 'temporary'. The term "TEMPORARY" is used in https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.= xhtml#algorithms but I agree that "provisional" is the right term. I'll re= vise accordingly. 16. Section 5.4 - So if somebody changes the crv value, is there any way to= tell the difference? If so then that should be described here. OK 17. Section 5.3 - This text seems to be self-contradictory. If you MUST N= OT use it, then how can you then use it? How does an implementation know w= hen it is or is not acceptable practice to use this? It's saying that COSE implementations MUST NOT use it. That doesn't mean t= hat we can stop TPMs from using it, and it's in that context that this algo= rithm identifier is used. 18. CHAIRS: You should run the fact that this document is updating JOSE r= egistries as well and make sure that there are going to be no surprises abo= ut this being not in charter. Given that the charter listed draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1-00 as a starti= ng point and it was already performing JOSE algorithm registrations, I susp= ect that there's no surprises in us doing so. Jim Thanks again, -- Mike From nobody Wed Mar 13 15:18:00 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 F0123126CFF for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=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 xLgvwEtDpavR for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (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 DA24A124BF6 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id k21so3151465ior.13 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:to:reply-to:from:subject:openpgp:autocrypt:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KrZA6KyOYPv6rvxjgM+7SdBwhKQ7Mp49bpMCM7kCIjM=; b=ziYjYRn5Dg1Uwd0j7BldE3FnRSsvzg97YO5XXw2Wohb9FbVH2qBnetjgtagP/80J2m 2pZtP8wWzaq92xeiG3k71IoopiOaL6FbjaHf/Kp0PDzgVGeKFwMj3xHxg7P0ld+zpQbq jB0aHvjSamGVUX4gF/GzlFidPIcYjuvtM2OXfGoqDOUt2+KjC0J2BJj+MCCa71pNEXHg bYxr2O/9kNC/+CH5z+mohq8Sx1G2lvSRm4YdR1DaRPFdKvBsYG7rSOQpxwCZdrSdKtAv fzuOxrWWXghtV0A3TxT0X08zrpxHW9cdfYIsLQ1yF06oPxqNVFMFfxUJ229Wg2wkPidT fjFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:to:reply-to:from:subject:openpgp :autocrypt:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KrZA6KyOYPv6rvxjgM+7SdBwhKQ7Mp49bpMCM7kCIjM=; b=gfEBNz8edKKJ05T1/abxb35n2mb6FDH6hQJzicA0vlA05RKzEZOipM8jLseIKI8bL5 wzaw+FgNwuJAaDFCLhI03X8fr4q6N3z/sLi3Hvb2fsyus0hDoa7EEzjGRI+KQvFe51pw fQNsPXYxqhCbpFLOYYJd79CMtS/Aq2exWWAl6izhzuCV9WmmUCBj/00nolNKeBTDy3kX dxwZ92rJVCtQJ8dhZqDzfW2JHxOC2Ez8mQLExE8VaUulk9wTxqSHafNPrBs5t1rG/DL9 HWL3RV7S2fPKI6QZlTl9qUoO7KJJ2t/IdbfXcUacvvZcc7HIBVxGxWrhsQ5budN22ksw VKRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUGL2CCYZe4+uzWmLMMxqfflMPjIxY8W2tuAp4ZcILVdWTHhMNe w+sRyuUbidaS6JcWkF38ijENLX0LqSC9zA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZDd0qHRTCY9uR03Qt/AlAbH291B4cJ95KgjVYVvZz0kuzW4BZlXBRddupaEXC0gc6AaG61A== X-Received: by 2002:a5e:df06:: with SMTP id f6mr2095761ioq.199.1552515475811; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mmiller-44677.local (c-24-8-164-51.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [24.8.164.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n20sm5439616iom.5.2019.03.13.15.17.54 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Matthew Miller To: cose Reply-To: cose-chairs@ietf.org 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: <2f20d980-ea8c-0ab4-e47d-2b7de63a495a@outer-planes.net> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:17:54 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] IETF 104 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: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:17:59 -0000 The draft agenda is posted to datatracker: < https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/agenda-104-cose-00 > See you in Prague! - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE WG Chairs From nobody Wed Mar 13 16:21:46 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 0907E131208 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:21:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 drb582jOZHr3 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) (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 45F1D1311FC for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmgw10.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.10]) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01026176168 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:54:08 -0600 (MDT) Received: from box514.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.114]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 4ClDhbvsIuj2o4ClDhd6pG; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:54:07 -0600 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 X-Authority-Analysis: $(_cmae_reason Received: from c-67-188-154-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([67.188.154.250]:52153 helo=[10.0.0.188]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1h4ClD-001sIC-Kk for cose@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:54:07 -0600 To: cose@ietf.org From: =JeffH Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:54:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box514.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - Kingsmountain.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 67.188.154.250 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1h4ClD-001sIC-Kk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: c-67-188-154-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([10.0.0.188]) [67.188.154.250]:52153 X-Source-Auth: jeff.hodges@kingsmountain.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: a2luZ3Ntb3U7a2luZ3Ntb3U7Ym94NTE0LmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ== X-Local-Domain: yes Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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, 13 Mar 2019 23:21:45 -0000 support =JeffH -- Matthew Miller Tue, 12 March 2019 23:14 UTCShow header Hello COSE Working Group, This begins the call for adoption of < draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a working group item: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it is finished, only that it is acceptable as a starting point. Please respond to this list if you support adopting the document. If you do not support adoption, please indicate why not. This call will run for approximately two weeks, ending March 26. From nobody Thu Mar 14 14:49:03 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 DB1911310C3 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=ve7jtb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odaOXtS8Tdyv for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (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 C1CAD13106F for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id w30so2614255qta.8 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ve7jtb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=3MYzBtVZkl8gXoQds6BaX5pMwsksd4ocI4aGQJuu80E=; b=j0hOndLObODG74XCpVSIvLU+4kpQHEkWhv3r5pYGTakV/GdXTjS3HDYb0/2bX87FxY PRsLHu4sIx0Q4LGbi5mgDHNfei9d8quX9wfxOxoYvCpPdf+QIhXXfcsg87+feUaEubJB 1w1G6L/WCSPz9katnuc41N/Mq75IngeEYHS/oK10Vqv5fepaSiUwCKIWKbNFRKe6k4RT uGt8ptuNxKxIfyprwL2U24kb4TAzmE8yeBP0GM8F9thfFLAn17pDMvrrqe91Za5+91bm uZcMftLrm84vZzh6+/yFObYK2EHU/jBVJCURFOgMG3g8vsrsHNcaHyjLqUvL8e5acDgY dtrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=3MYzBtVZkl8gXoQds6BaX5pMwsksd4ocI4aGQJuu80E=; b=dPmJXNIg4I3m00vyzeykC+R/Gf8Lg43mcY9nF2AqLJ/FtblqGxILPHe/9eP8DWP/6R dH6GWowYbJhPRDlq1xifhDEhC5OfvOnZjAioosc0y5EWFGb+/acvnRLGpsL/NcBtvROV H4WJh6F5AkQ9e7saovq1hhSgP3rHPf9W0icya49WjNRU9XY5Iqayyn9RDjdBD41NmEVB cjNZ5FKyIDm0xUFY7sIfDPqJIH6dhLquvWKfMxeRJ/oRooDcEP0S3tGz2R3R2/eL2bl/ CYkr55l1UZQyBEE4yNYB4iIkKHdFhfIPz7UaCVsvf0A3kvBywT1463bwE2jmc3as0cLR ag5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWeqQ7YLHHs+MdL0YbBdezlu9gfwRWgJa3iRVNs2p9rBPFP9uhS a1Rdmftq8xorOJik3FKPowIgeh4Lvu0gog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxNGjsSFpHHOrdpRk5Fu5OEx0T7J9DfuqwIxFG8RLuXGtN7IQWJqJjzk3fYcUkvn4L+sFs7ww== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b05a:: with SMTP id l26mr124268qvc.40.1552600136931; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.8.103] ([181.203.110.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f13sm79537qto.80.2019.03.14.14.48.54 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT) To: cose@ietf.org References: From: John Bradley Message-ID: <9098b74d-1dde-a0b8-0b8f-4ee487512c9b@ve7jtb.com> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:48:54 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/66.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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, 14 Mar 2019 21:49:01 -0000 I support adoption. On 3/13/2019 7:54 PM, =JeffH wrote: > support > > =JeffH > > -- > Matthew Miller Tue, 12 March 2019 > 23:14 UTCShow header > > Hello COSE Working Group, > > This begins the call for adoption of < > draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a working group item: > > * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 > > As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it is finished, only > that it is acceptable as a starting point. > > Please respond to this list if you support adopting the document. If > you do not support adoption, please indicate why not. > > This call will run for approximately two weeks, ending March 26. > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Fri Mar 15 04:45:14 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 54AF312AF80 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 04:45:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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=yubico.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 FmL0Sihi5QYo for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (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 B87E4128B36 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id i8so9262990wrm.0 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yubico.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=katGq/m+SNM3KHvPh2AvKNASHpQPGZyq1VX5OM0zilY=; b=l5D8w8kShkjxHvbmrXB14M7QshfThKMTKzI4W+DCeRg8UxVkOYF8RMZIzWVrjhMW+N uABgrNZUZwT8VW5296VZmsdCF5yYXpdJ2LG74D6wAq30wEjsJRg4KCqlvWyz6yBBvCrR r1OjBoU5xpCoWrq4+ZiVQ4C9Spy+EXtDQldMaz3p4zyBGQ27xGYbBQxVaxVOWjC4ZAgX oBzOi7HAHGEOfLmz88jgXU3/F8WhIv/QERsGM+VJladOIZUtoHg1PpKicZb8BJNnnvBc yLWDgwOUTIIWKGMJc8BjpW3/8P81/4GMmPcdV3amH+DEMXNPrOEl0Yawx9E17TUEWHCx YFUg== 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=katGq/m+SNM3KHvPh2AvKNASHpQPGZyq1VX5OM0zilY=; b=QTmuB7+AyadOiRJ8haVRwMmanWoLCHqafMFvZe89EyK6Dzon2c1SBs8S8F5+FHRqvE gFD7zBa/izYXOtpqDs+KCXqtz+sR4OPNhXi+1M1Shm6+k4Tfr1jQjkVEcXb15Lxq7R9F WFUsCxitw7LjunMaU+xE5V3ka4eCvX+D5GaRzflLogTj4LMLCl6hD/Nxkrr5Oo8f9lUC i77Lcs7g0eVPUXz9lUydoQHBJK2PgSQpcVTotG/vJrZqhWABG/okMFNKVZcFEzsgJ2L3 +NoXsdDy2Du1r3oSe0mBbi0/TQlYsWeEhPCHAgmJfRmK6tBe/Q5anLPF9+SKohmxfoIq W7Gg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTKx29GB4quktw83FQX5UWwpYaXgo0P/zxSiz/5A4wRCLjs+0U 0Asf1rwz734mQYyhm63bQ1vVaQg3wt0gAcFKw7Hy4HAD X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJbSpSuwqZepMvizapmv+/f1q1wPA2YYxdwOHLWtBnBSf6W6mPeVkQ7Gw/fTTHoO9si9c/hEgM3DZEy4o6TQ4= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e3d1:: with SMTP id k17mr2071239wrm.143.1552650305124; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 04:45:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9098b74d-1dde-a0b8-0b8f-4ee487512c9b@ve7jtb.com> In-Reply-To: <9098b74d-1dde-a0b8-0b8f-4ee487512c9b@ve7jtb.com> From: Emil Lundberg Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:44:52 +0100 Message-ID: To: John Bradley Cc: cose@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5d75005842091f6" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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 Mar 2019 11:45:11 -0000 --000000000000e5d75005842091f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I support adoption. On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:49 PM John Bradley wrote: > I support adoption. > > On 3/13/2019 7:54 PM, =JeffH wrote: > > support > > > > =JeffH > > > > -- > > Matthew Miller Tue, 12 March 2019 > > 23:14 UTCShow header > > > > Hello COSE Working Group, > > > > This begins the call for adoption of < > > draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a working group item: > > > > * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 > > > > As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it is finished, only > > that it is acceptable as a starting point. > > > > Please respond to this list if you support adopting the document. If > > you do not support adoption, please indicate why not. > > > > This call will run for approximately two weeks, ending March 26. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Emil Lundberg Software Developer | Yubico --000000000000e5d75005842091f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I support adoption.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jo= hn Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com&g= t; wrote:
I support adoption.

On 3/13/2019 7:54 PM, =3DJeffH wrote:
> support
>
> =3DJeffH
>
> --
> Matthew Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net> Tue, 12 March 2= 019
> 23:14 UTCShow header
>
> Hello COSE Working Group,
>
> This begins the call for adoption of <
> draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms > as a working group item: >
> * https://tools.ietf.org/h= tml/draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00
>
> As a reminder, adopting a draft does not mean it is finished, only
> that it is acceptable as a starting point.
>
> Please respond to this list if you support adopting the document. If > you do not support adoption, please indicate why not.
>
> This call will run for approximately two weeks, ending March 26.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--

Emil Lundberg
<= /p>

Software Developer | Yubico


--000000000000e5d75005842091f6-- From nobody Wed Mar 20 01:07:00 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 3035C1240D3; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:06:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d6C-PX2rjEZ5; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2646C1277CE; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (62.168.35.125) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:06:51 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: CC: 'cose' Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:06:48 +0100 Message-ID: <010e01d4def3$dff43610$9fdca230$@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: AdTezIxxDjqGIyfgQKi5I6wJ4l4Z8Q== Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [62.168.35.125] Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 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, 20 Mar 2019 08:06:59 -0000 First, I don't think I have any technical issues with how to use this with COSE, that said I find there are numerous issues about the description of HSS/LMS. 1. Section 2.1: Same comment as for LAMPS about stand-along tree definition. 2. Section 2.2: LMS systems have three not two parameters, Hash Function, # of bytes used, tree depth. It is possible to use fewer bytes than the hash function generates. I don't know that this would ever be used but it is more correct. 3. Section 2.2: The registry would also allow for new hash functions to be used as well. 4. Section 2.3: See comment #2 about adding hash function 5. Section 4.1: In paragraph 3, implementation currently violates the conditions in this paragraph. I am resigning the same input with the same key multiple times because I need to generate the signature on the public key each time I build a signature. Should this be restated to allow for that to occur? 6. Section 4.1: I think that it might be worth while having a statement about the use of appendix A in [HASHSIG]. The use of this does two things: 1) it decreases the size of the private key and 2) it decreases the effective size of the private key down to the seed value rather than having all of the LMOTS keys generated independently. Jim From nobody Wed Mar 20 14:02:53 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 A38E3129AA0 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 xE8lOPjDV8fN for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 831B0124BF6 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8583300AB3 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:44:32 -0400 (EDT) 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 Nm0BFIeksIHL for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F10A330024F; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:44:30 -0400 (EDT) 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: <010e01d4def3$dff43610$9fdca230$@augustcellars.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 17:02:47 -0400 Cc: cose Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1F6B7C86-BDC0-4114-A69F-7E428D184DEA@vigilsec.com> References: <010e01d4def3$dff43610$9fdca230$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 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, 20 Mar 2019 21:02:53 -0000 Jim: > First, I don't think I have any technical issues with how to use this = with > COSE, that said I find there are numerous issues about the description = of > HSS/LMS. >=20 > 1. Section 2.1: Same comment as for LAMPS about stand-along tree > definition. I will try to align the LAMPS and COSE documents now that the LAMPS = document has been sent to the IESG. > 2. Section 2.2: LMS systems have three not two parameters, Hash = Function, # > of bytes used, tree depth. It is possible to use fewer bytes than the = hash > function generates. I don't know that this would ever be used but it = is > more correct. The exchange with Scott Fluhrer indicates that the shortened hash is = possible, but it is not clear why one would do that. > 3. Section 2.2: The registry would also allow for new hash functions = to be > used as well. Correct. I will add that. > 4. Section 2.3: See comment #2 about adding hash function Okay. I will add it here too. > 5. Section 4.1: In paragraph 3, implementation currently violates = the > conditions in this paragraph. I am resigning the same input with the = same > key multiple times because I need to generate the signature on the = public > key each time I build a signature. Should this be restated to allow = for > that to occur? Paragraph 3 says: The generation of private keys relies on random numbers. The use of inadequate pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) to generate these values can result in little or no security. An attacker may find it much easier to reproduce the PRNG environment that produced the keys, searching the resulting small set of possibilities, rather than brute force searching the whole key space. The generation of quality random numbers is difficult. [RFC4086] offers important guidance in this area. I do not understand what you want to change. > 6. Section 4.1: I think that it might be worth while having a = statement > about the use of appendix A in [HASHSIG]. The use of this does two = things: > 1) it decreases the size of the private key and 2) it decreases the > effective size of the private key down to the seed value rather than = having > all of the LMOTS keys generated independently. The Introduction includes: ... The HSS/LMS private key can be very small when the signer is willing to perform additional computation at signing time; alternatively, the private key can consume additional memory and provide a faster signing time. What security consideration does this raise? Russ From nobody Thu Mar 21 01:34:40 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 92297130E8B for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 01:34:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=fUD9Hlhh; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=ms2GE+en 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 uMfwcvn7ronV for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 01:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (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 6F5A6130DE7 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 01:34:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1553157273; x=1555749273; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XaNE6yHIMYyzmufV9oi95EMe6uLpkJkLn1l5pmGJwvY=; b=fUD9HlhhGxXlB95B51Mt1XwEC+f0uHGIGWnAIBqPgvP5DtKaLY5HtQvusJ1+rWVO Fqh/FShXwG3V1LKtrajlNGANyDLizdnPO612RujhU5F7jzoFcQrGMOL5CTpMH+/+ u4DKxGwS6XqjhWp8BJxiOYvF5V9733mVCOSLNyqus3U=; X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-2198b9e00000062f-12-5c934c997153 Received: from ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.120]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 30.EE.01583.99C439C5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:34:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) by ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:34:32 +0100 Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:34:32 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=XaNE6yHIMYyzmufV9oi95EMe6uLpkJkLn1l5pmGJwvY=; b=ms2GE+enjQOuwxfnyV4uQOvkwwms4j19/ilspKhQaDToXg7vVRwjCcVzSyub8prgT9dvcSLltef6vdALHSEYgS3n0MroiJ0Nskyll3+HrPHEhX2odY3DH8vkiv/jKsQEWbvdHZ9WpfMI57pjpsvMLIw/AFm5hmismclbyU9azi4= Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.22) by HE1PR07MB4171.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1709.11; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:34:30 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8]) by HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1730.013; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:34:30 +0000 From: John Mattsson To: "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-00 Thread-Index: AQHU38DmwzCfZkrk5kyDFLcLTdQYVw== Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:34:30 +0000 Message-ID: <15CE8355-F584-4C65-81C8-6C83615820D7@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.16.1.190220 x-originating-ip: [82.214.46.143] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 12e9b9b8-54f5-40ee-48ab-08d6add80971 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR07MB4171; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB4171: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 0983EAD6B2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(376002)(199004)(189003)(71190400001)(83716004)(82746002)(256004)(36756003)(81166006)(81156014)(7736002)(6506007)(305945005)(44832011)(6116002)(6916009)(86362001)(71200400001)(66066001)(99286004)(5660300002)(3846002)(1730700003)(8676002)(2906002)(316002)(476003)(105586002)(6436002)(106356001)(58126008)(53936002)(2616005)(5640700003)(2351001)(25786009)(14454004)(6486002)(26005)(2501003)(486006)(14444005)(8936002)(68736007)(478600001)(33656002)(97736004)(102836004)(186003)(6346003)(6512007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB4171; H:HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:3; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=john.mattsson@ericsson.com; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 2s/y+MTLCCbxgufMKBN6GKtphKrtciM1R794e10wpWmDubGHkzLIUtmO0hxXtyXrEojE4cu7RKnh2mXcE41IBUCWdsYKKsVvJrjTWBKePcoxx3XhkVx4DzcPN83SjJ8lfZ//A9CQ/SfgB421iWkRvgGOatT5StpRf5AMq+siX+XoyjA/XxnlnzX8Rqpip/o1drdE99uZFQf7nlNI4HwFeVKrRP0LkPZVGBaTw6hyZKEwSmkxkPCPOE5db9fO+fqxLTL0ryO9pUlA59nWel3nOe8+v48JPkoUxBe2caGmhAVqYua2DxXuSspag03fyqe/kzxgZlDKCk9NAStjO9YEEgZznt1HOekeLt37qUwgPk6e7DbtjhX+1U+qoYCV/qUl3vEOfoTIi0Vb6b3BOYcmlm/7JoGhadVid2oWU+B7Zdw= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0A687509DAD1CA4C8EF8D52D5BE5608A@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 12e9b9b8-54f5-40ee-48ab-08d6add80971 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2019 08:34:30.1283 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB4171 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbG9Qnemz+QYg7d3VC2mbZ3K6sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujFULtjEXLJGs2L76BHMD4wWJLkYODgkBE4l7t6y7GLk4hASO MEp83XKPHcL5xijRsG8tM4SzhEmia20/UxcjJweLwARmicsfeCASk5kk9t2fzwjhPGCUONs3 kxWkik3AQGLungY2EFtEQFli0rFmsLiwgKHEhE3rmSHiZhKHzjVC1ehJzDnRwA6xQVVizbfN jCA2r4C9xIwTd8B6GQXEJL6fWgN2BbOAuMStJ/PBbAkBAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/wOrFxXQl9jS 94AFIq4ocXrfCqgaWYlL87sZIWxfiX1L9zGBPCAhcJNRYv+Wp1AJLYmlHZfYIOxsiQlHPkPZ MhLrby6CarjCKvHuzkmwBiGBVInla1sZIS6NlWhtnc4K0SAnsar3IQtEw3lmiYNnQTZwAL2g KbF+l/4ERu1ZSB6ahZCBMD0kPvzkh6hQlJjS/ZB9FjhYBCVOznzCsoCRdRWjaHFqcXFuupGx XmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYOI4uOW37g7G1a8dDzEKcDAq8fD+dJ4cI8SaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmE 18QWKMSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZz3j5BgjJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoEx8ulh z75l9+Q/9b0+ZJRkul2bNfe9q2+Ut2ix1v3ExVUKGxMyVjqEvZlUefoo05n13o1GdUu7a3Yn exhGKkp+DzM5rXH9V2Wg3sfQ3QuS3KbfLT+lIbKjl6V1QswN90mdV4Xa71/o12QLW+8voDj9 idcrzr0TZklyr5uw1rL5QOrXVzu9rjorsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAT4Ni0BgDAAA= Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-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: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:34:39 -0000 V2VsbC13cml0dGVuLiBJIHRoaW5rIHRoZSBzZWxlY3Rpb24gb2YgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBpcyBjb3Jy ZWN0LiBHcmVhdCB0byBzZWUgbW9yZSB3b3JrIG9uIHRoZSB3b3JrIG9uIHRoZSB2ZXJ5IHVzZWZ1 bCBDT1NFIGZvcm1hdC4NCg0KSW4gVGFibGUgMTogIlNIQS0xIEhhc2giIC0+ICJTSEEtMSAxNjAt Yml0IEhhc2giIHRvIGFsaWduIHdpdGggVGFibGUgMg0KDQotICJUaGUgdHJhZGUtb2ZmIGlzIHRo YXQgdGhlIG9kZHMgdGhhdCBhIGNvbGxpc2lvbiB3aWxsIG9jY3VyIGluY3JlYXNlIHByb3BvcnRp b25hbGx5Ig0KDQpDb3JyZWN0IGluIGFuIEVuZ2xpc2ggbGFuZ3VhZ2Uga2luZCBvZiB3YXksIGJ1 dCBub3Qgd2hhdCBtYXRoZW1hdGljaWFucyBjYWxsIHByb3BvcnRpb25hbGx5LCBJIHdvdWxkIHN1 Z2dlc3QgcmVtb3ZpbmcgIiBwcm9wb3J0aW9uYWxseSINCg0KLSIqU0hBLTI1NiogaXMgcHJvYmFi bHkgdGhlIG1vc3QgY29tbW9uIGhhc2ggZnVuY3Rpb24iDQoNCkxldCdzIGhvcGUgc28sIGJ1dCBJ IHdvdWxkIHByb2JhYmx5IHN0aWxsIGJldCBteSBtb25leSBvbiBTSEEtMS4uLi4sIG1heWJlIHJl bW92ZSB0aGlzIHNlbnRlbmNlIGFueXdheSBhcyBpdCBtYXkgbm90IGJlIHRydWUgaW4gdGhlIGZ1 dHVyZSwgYW5kIHRoZSAicHJvYmFibHkiIGluZGljYXRlcyB0aGF0IHdlIGRvIG5vdCByZWFsbHkg a25vdy4NCg0KIlNIQS0yNTYgaXMgdGhlIG1vc3QgZWZmaWNpZW50IGhhc2ggYWxnb3JpdGhtIGZv ciAzMi1iaXQgaGFyZHdhcmUuIg0KDQpJIHN1Z2dlc3QgY2hhbmdpbmcgdG8gInZlcnkgZWZmaWNp ZW50IiBhcyB0aGVyZSBhcmUgbGlrZWx5IHNvbWUgZXhjZXB0aW9ucy4NCg0KLSAiU0hBLTUxMi8y NTYgLi4uLiBvZmZlcnMgdGhlIHNhbWUgc2VjdXJpdHkgbGV2ZWxzIGFzIFNIQS0yNTYuIg0KDQpT SEEtNTEyLzI1NiBvZmZlcnMgbXVjaCBiZXR0ZXIgcmVzaXN0YW5jZSBhZ2FpbnN0IGxlbmd0aCBl eHRlbnNpb24gYXR0YWNrcyB0aGFuIFNIQS0yNTYuIEkgc3VnZ2VzdCBjaGFuZ2luZyB0bw0KDQoi U0hBLTUxMi8yNTYgLi4uLiBvZmZlcnMgdGhlIHNhbWUgY29sbGlzaW9uIHJlc2lzdGFuY2UgYXMg U0hBLTI1Ni4NCg0KTGVuZ3RoIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBhdHRhY2tzIGlzIHByb2JhYmx5IG9uZSBvZiB0 aGUgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBpbiB0aGUgc2VjdXJpdHkgY29uc2lk ZXJhdGlvbnMuIFNIQS0yNTYgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSByZWNvbW1lbmRlZCBmb3IgYXBwbGljYXRp b24gd2hlcmUgbGVuZ3RoIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBhdHRhY2tzIGFyZSBhIHByb2JsZW0uDQoNCk9MRDog IlNIQUtFLTEyOCIsICJTSEFLRS0yNTYiDQpORVc6ICJTSEFLRTEyOCIgIlNIQUtFMjU2Ig0KDQpP TEQ6ICJUaGUgU0hBLTMgaGFzaCBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGhhdmUgYSBzaWduaWZpY2FudGx5IGRpZmZl cmVudCBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgdGhhbiB0aGUgU0hBLTMgaGFzaCBhbGdvcml0aG1zIg0KTkVXOiAiVGhl IFNIQS0zIGhhc2ggYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBoYXZlIGEgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnRseSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgc3Ry dWN0dXJlIHRoYW4gdGhlIFNIQS0yIGhhc2ggYWxnb3JpdGhtcyINCg0KLSBUaGUgbmVlZCB0byBk ZWZpbmUgbmV3IGFsZ29yaXRobXMgZm9yIGVhY2ggdHJ1bmNhdGlvbiBpcyBhIGJpdCBsaW1pdGlu Zy4gRm9yIHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpYyB1c2UgY2FzZSBpbiBYLjUwOSwgSSBkbyBub3Qgc2VlIGFueSBu ZWVkLg0KDQpDT1NFX0NlcnRIYXNoID0gWyBoYXNoQWxnOiAoaW50IC8gdHN0ciksIGhhc2hWYWx1 ZTogYnN0ciBdDQoNClRoZSBsZW5ndGggaXMgYWxyZWFkeSBlbmNvZGVkIGluIGhhc2hWYWx1ZSwg U0hBLTI1Ni82NCA9IFRCRDEganVzdCBlbmNvZGVzIHRoZSBzYW1lIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFsc28g aW4gaGFzaEFsZy4gQXQgbGVhc3QgaW4gdGhpcyB1c2UgY2FzZSwgYW4gYXR0YWNrZXIgdGhhdCBj YW4gdHJ1bmNhdGUgaGFzaFZhbHVlIGNhbiBhbHNvIGNoYW5nZSBoYXNoQWxnLiANCg0KSW4gb3Ro ZXIgY2FzZXMgKGxpa2UgR3JvdXAgT1NDT1JFIGFuZCBFREhPQykgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBuZWVkIHRv IHVuaXF1ZWx5IGlkZW50aWZ5IGFuZCBhbGdvcml0aG0gYW5kIGFsbCBpdHMgcGFyYW1ldGVycywg YnV0IGlzIHRoYXQgY2FzZSBpdCBjb3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGZsZXhpYmxlIHRvIGRlZmluZSBhIHBh cmFtZXRlcmlzZWQgYWxnb3JpdGhtIGFzDQoNCnBhcmFBbGcgPSBbYWxnOiBpbnQgLyB0c3J0LCBw YXJhbWV0ZXJzOiAqIGFueV0NCg0KYW5kIGRlZmluZQ0KDQpTSEEtMjU2LzY0ICBhcyBbVEJEMiwg NjRdIG9yIFtUQkQyLCA4XQ0KU0hBLTUxMi8yNTYgYXMgW1RCRDQsIDI1Nl0gb3IgW1RCRDQsIDMy XQ0KDQpOaXRzOg0KDQoid3NhIg0KDQoNCg== From nobody Thu Mar 21 09:38:43 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 BEDCB131303 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=ZRqr5ANa; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=JDsxLgLE 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 rZB6oprEE-Ya for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 1F7071312F1 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1553186316; x=1555778316; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=QDA+i9hfbRWn67Set1MyI+P2ue1ZNSoBKJ4L8YEPBJw=; b=ZRqr5ANaaF/i5Ib0GiD6rBL9KnyLpUDA0AIT+YHz9MIdUbNoyVB4K0JvB9ZOc4w0 kiHEQTL51ovDpricDKJVpogBseY5+DrVZHXiMKhJb9g4bt/6r7u0/ZjexhokWVpu dcV5c/dromrag+tb2jYLaZE8G7mq4UKa/y5ddMOeV/s=; X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-017ff70000001645-c8-5c93be0c8204 Received: from ESESBMB504.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.117]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0D.C5.05701.C0EB39C5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:38:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) by ESESBMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:38:36 +0100 Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:38:36 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QDA+i9hfbRWn67Set1MyI+P2ue1ZNSoBKJ4L8YEPBJw=; b=JDsxLgLE1Xpof7MYHOFiPFfs9LNeUPmpiTszE5Oe/sMZIBc0GFSqHj4uInd0PKATUcSqZu21VZfFKobCfL9vXXg/zwWNVMw5vl1PXMTbVSM2cnNhEUbdyJlNsMAo5Hn/AtFB3YSIlT1QQ6s/jrLyt7m9bFYSTc1YBDJANZKm9iw= Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.22) by HE1PR07MB3211.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.170.246.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1730.15; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:38:34 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8]) by HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1730.013; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:38:34 +0000 From: John Mattsson To: "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 Thread-Index: AQHU4ASGbH3N9oBpiEOomO6+Cjibiw== Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.16.1.190220 x-originating-ip: [82.214.46.143] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3ffad901-2146-4f32-8e77-08d6ae1ba962 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR07MB3211; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB3211: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 0983EAD6B2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(199004)(189003)(66066001)(44832011)(7736002)(305945005)(5660300002)(8676002)(81166006)(14454004)(6916009)(25786009)(6436002)(81156014)(68736007)(3846002)(2616005)(316002)(8936002)(1730700003)(82746002)(2351001)(2906002)(33656002)(105586002)(36756003)(6486002)(186003)(476003)(6116002)(486006)(97736004)(256004)(478600001)(106356001)(2501003)(6506007)(6512007)(99286004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(26005)(6346003)(86362001)(5640700003)(83716004)(58126008)(53936002)(102836004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB3211; H:HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=john.mattsson@ericsson.com; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: KQbT66ahzQ/KiFEWjTT2r17M77mHxBRB3DFP9dM0967lLXe0xj9jZQTyFhp5G+j+saoisuUsDT+qfp36csU5bZV1p/YKYS2VWE8XbHhaQ2beymwcNW50iios1Uop5b1RmOhDu5YO9b3OCWn7t014/8WQflpBvUqS4BN/88BnP15LneFHF7URtgjr8mHjXzsntJyuujmrJlYAEEiRK4KgELrnpnP8GZMeUomcAnRbrIKizM144CX1BLpe8Aeg2UrXr3NMIqH6jiVWDZfa2CH3qDiz3WlafTvc0/fQD7PNyfs5aZOKmXHErIrx8KLRYcwpZnwV8hIp600RlOYVxG1LhI3AQve4T7BRZs97+fxKBnXotCYUNZ+9k4mwdyBLCniV8V7JMKIGr2KAaX/rGrzc+FfDPQk2+q48uE3MdgLzcVY= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <1BD63E20216134448101E29F3B333B6A@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3ffad901-2146-4f32-8e77-08d6ae1ba962 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2019 16:38:34.7021 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB3211 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbG9VJdn3+QYg+8r9CymbZ3K6sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujIetCgXzuCv+357G0sD4g6uLkZNDQsBEYvHzz2wgtpDAEUaJ n5/NIOxvjBKHT1V0MXIB2UuYJH729IAVsQhMYJb4fl4DIjGZSaJpwgEWCOcBo8T9GW3MIFVs AgYSc/c0gHWICChLTDrWzApiCwvYSRzaeogJIu4sseHlL2YIW0+if9dNZogNqhIfJ7wBs3kF 7CW2nf0INodRQEzi+6k1YL3MAuISt57MZ4J4QUBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx//AdokK6Ets6XvAAhFX lDi9bwVUjazEpfndjF2MHEC2r8SOJ1Ug90sI3GSU6J83hQUiriXx7aI+RHm2xNo5x9khbBmJ 9TcXQa09xSqx+6Q+JLRSJZavbWWEODNWorV1OitEjZzEqt6HLBDzzzNL7G6YDzafWUBTYv0u /QmM2rOQfDMLIQMR9pC4MfkUO4StKDGl+yGYzSsgKHFy5hOWBYysqxhFi1OLi3PTjYz0Uosy k4uL8/P08lJLNjECE8bBLb+tdjAefO54iFGAg1GJh7d80+QYIdbEsuLK3EOMEhzMSiK8u6KB QrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViUxHn/CAnGCAmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhgF+TatXHg2 QfJ/zPOmMie5xz07vTY37XW6YsD9xzBl2o+lL5PTokOuHVRq+njuzqFPz89Fbz/IX3r91eG6 PS4zK5Kma71ar5b5eVZ5oq6J+frZrCzKFfM+PzILFpQRsbsYtF70ppZDCX9wy6fI+xnaIvwC 79ckc5rr7HtomXt2sWpe5ckjBiVKLMUZiYZazEXFiQAYLMP4FAMAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Comments on draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-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: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:38:42 -0000 SGksDQoNClRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBtb3RpdmF0ZXMgd2h5IHRoZXNlIG5vdCByZWNvbW1lbmRlZCBh bmQgZGVwcmVjYXRlZCBhbGdvcml0aG1zIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgcmVnaXN0ZXJlZC4gV2VsbC13cml0 dGVuLg0KDQotICJBZGRpdGlvbmFsIEFsZ29yaXRobSBSZWdpc3RyYXRpb25zIGZvciBDT1NFIGFu ZCBKT1NFIg0KTWF5YmUgdGhlIHRpdGxlIGNvdWxkIGluY2x1ZGUgIldlYkF1dGhuIiwgIkZJRE8y IiwgYW5kL29yIENUQVANCg0KLSAiVGhlc2UgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBhcmUgcmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBpbiB0 aGUgSUFOQSAiQ09TRSBBbGdvcml0aG1zIiByZWdpc3RyeSINClRoZSB0aXRsZSBhYnN0cmFjdCBh bmQgaW50cm8gb25seSBtZW50aW9ucyBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGFuZCB0aGUgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyByZWdp c3RyaWVzLiBUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYWxzbyByZWdpc3RlcnMgYSBjdXJ2ZSBpbiB0aGUgIklBTkEg IkNPU0UgRWxsaXB0aWMgQ3VydmVzIiBhbmQgIiJKU09OIFdlYiBLZXkgRWxsaXB0aWMgQ3VydmUi IHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMuDQoNCi0gInBhcmFtZXRlcml6ZWQgd2l0aCBhIGhhc2ggZnVuY3Rpb24gKGgp LiINCkkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGFiYnJldmlhdGlvbiBoIGlzIG5ldmVyIHVzZS4NCg0KLSBJIHRoaW5r IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBzaG91bGQgZG8gYXMgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1jb3NlLWhhc2gtYWxncy0wMCBh bmQgaGF2ZSBhIHJlY29tbWVuZGVkIGNvbHVtbiBpbiB0aGUgdGFibGVzLg0KDQotICJQLTI1Nksi DQpEbyB3ZSByZWFsbHkgbmVlZCBhIG5ldyBuYW1lIGZvciBzZWNwMjU2azE/IEkgd291bGQgc3Vn Z2VzdCBub3QuIE1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHRhbGtzIGFib3V0IHNlY3AyNTZrMSBhbnl3 YXkuIEdpdmluZyBzZWNwMjU2azEgdGhlIGFsaWFzIFAtMjU2SyBnaXZlcyB0aGUgaW1wcmVzc2lv biB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIGEgY3VydmUgc3RhbmRhcmRpemVkIGJ5IE5JU1QsIHdoaWNoIGl0IGlzIG5v dC4NCg0KLSAib2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCIgdnMuIG9mIFtbIHRoaXMgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBd XQ0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpKb2huDQoNCg== From nobody Thu Mar 21 12:40:48 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 CB68B1315A3 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:40:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=NiphygtM; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=QCLhHgj1 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 gGiyPRDv1XOR for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (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 0960813159A for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:40:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1553197241; x=1555789241; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=UtTTEGjsfwMpGZv4lBrGHiIsbRBwD+bCowb++ZmzPUQ=; b=NiphygtMjtRHBNKAHbW+EJ5zCkzrvzcsVUoqBCmP9IqKOmMg/MDtB7emr4yVm21J r8ook3/lqEGKquiualvx9MmFwoj5TrjQkn6RWGB/rvtTPvmBfteW1SuGdDjiPLV3 pRLJNahjZz347bz3VJT/sugPzvfJrQu29UpgS56yLxQ=; X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-307ff70000007fec-06-5c93e8b9bbe2 Received: from ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.115]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 29.30.32748.9B8E39C5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:40:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESBMR501.ericsson.se (153.88.183.129) by ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.115) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:40:41 +0100 Received: from ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.169) by ESESBMR501.ericsson.se (153.88.183.129) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:40:41 +0100 Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:40:41 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=UtTTEGjsfwMpGZv4lBrGHiIsbRBwD+bCowb++ZmzPUQ=; b=QCLhHgj1+411h8PfXpdpoTkPLwlBgNgnlvD+xPcm7WaXX6p8ENK5iPljDlGmFLzUWgYkle6GuJtcorf0URjyRToYPtw9k5v+UgBiJsXPqlBfgv+F2/D+hzf3dF8+nWgzELTkK2PV2WfjvOgI9bbfYMcwQwWcRVJXAxzf//C3U00= Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.22) by HE1PR07MB3321.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.170.246.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1709.11; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:40:40 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8]) by HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1730.013; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:40:40 +0000 From: John Mattsson To: "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 Thread-Index: AQHU4B32R9GV+Fyim0mAnuvESWE62w== Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:40:40 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.16.1.190220 authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=john.mattsson@ericsson.com; x-originating-ip: [82.214.46.143] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d930730a-e0ad-47ee-0cc0-08d6ae351969 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR07MB3321; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB3321: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 0983EAD6B2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(58126008)(316002)(6486002)(33656002)(3846002)(53936002)(2501003)(82746002)(6506007)(26005)(2906002)(6436002)(6116002)(5640700003)(478600001)(102836004)(99286004)(6512007)(8936002)(44832011)(36756003)(68736007)(486006)(7736002)(105586002)(305945005)(106356001)(6916009)(2351001)(97736004)(14454004)(186003)(476003)(2616005)(81156014)(5660300002)(83716004)(1730700003)(25786009)(256004)(66066001)(81166006)(71190400001)(86362001)(71200400001)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB3321; H:HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: P5L6OSQz8SCt5rf0ZtgAhJBl01rjzmfpJT3A1y2s10z0uPUGXw9pnwJjzWeViwZiuWtiDPRAcVOOHx9oIHP7oMndLL1D2AYzE+KouYoTm+b+QBoM25f9+1ClJmupYBBLp5YU3qpTgXv5nqcR2gVDHrn1sq073ajQj4GhiHXHZEJ0spD6Do9fGS1Gou0FmQ1YZpVOgMFh3+wjSjXCQzsRAp7q4bfna97ehiBNBTGqYwXS8wPNt67+v1xBnPX3VrEVhXRWDS6opHQJe/baCnZx0rJAfPQIelXE0TzaA/nvoVjzfeR1GiExFC0Fn9jkMnPVCKXRvAXiU8iW0jh3IpABcg6EnMsqZWjWm/NwTG5ppHgKRM129JY4/LJbmtIx9OnCb4kYsGfh8QV4Wy6r2o3MlYPtRDcIHtDx/0Gqke1gfd8= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <3F67567F16DD2C43B3A734B35A6325ED@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d930730a-e0ad-47ee-0cc0-08d6ae351969 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2019 19:40:40.1527 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB3321 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbG9WHfni8kxBvfnWFtM2zqV1YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGbvX72EvWCVYsfv4ZcYGxg8CXYycHBICJhKnf/SydDFycQgJ HGGUOL1yEStIQkjgG6PEmQ+SEAkg+/mz40wQzhImid0Nz8BaWAQmMEtsOtTMDNEyhUniwd4Y iKoHjBK/jzUxgSTYBAwk5u5pYAOxRQSUJSYdawbbIQwUfzxxMytE3FRiw+FrjBC2nkTDnttg Q1kEVCV6uj+B2bwC9hJnjj0HsxkFxCS+n1oDNp9ZQFzi1pP5TBAPCUgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B/Y fFEBfYktfQ9YIHpjJVpbp7NC1ChKnN63AqpeVuLS/G5GCNtX4uS6bawgz0gI3GSUWLN0NtQC LYmDS15D2dkSB89cYYGwZSTW31wEFT/IKtH+VRsSKqkSy9e2Qg2Vk1jV+5AFYuh5ZonuhZOZ JzDqzELyxCxGDiBbU2L9Ln2IsIfE3suLGCFsRYkp3Q/ZZ4HDQlDi5MwnLAsYWVcxihanFifl phsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBCaPg1t+G+xgfPnc8RCjAAejEg/vrHOTY4RYE8uKK3MPMUpw MCuJ8O6KBgrxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLn/SMkGCMkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpg 9H50Lr5cd9mLmvD2Y5OuLrra0Pdx9ZQJy+of/WFNe7r9nlOi6q/3UydatIl6L97pkLJn6r99 Pir1s+3kFNREZktFv3nf0n/CrnHBeuN1OsUZqi7qKgvj9E4YtGwrZ/CaZHFgW+2yU982qNhn vuznDCl9KOwYZ7ZnuZNrb5nCW/vcrTdrTFk2KrEUZyQaajEXFScCAC2nm+8aAwAA Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 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, 21 Mar 2019 19:40:47 -0000 IEhpLA0KDQpTb21lIGhpZ2ggbGV2ZWwgY29tbWVudHMgYmVsb3cuIEkgbmVlZCB0byByZWFkIGRy YWZ0LW1jZ3Jldy1oYXNoLXNpZ3MgaW4gbW9yZSBkZXRhaWwgYmVmb3JlIGdpdmluZyBtb3JlIGNv bW1lbnRzLiANCg0KLSBTZWN0aW9uIDEuMTogSSB0aGluayBzb21lIHNob3J0IGluZm8gb24gdGhl IHRocmVhdCBmcm9tIFNob3IncyBhbGdvcml0aG0gd291bGQgYmUgZ29vZC4gSSBkb24ndCB0aGlu ayBbQkgyMDEzXSB0YWxrZWQgYWJvdXQgcXVhbnR1bSBjb21wdXRlcnMuDQoNCi0gU2VjdGlvbiAx LjE6ICJSU0EsIERTQSwgYW5kIEVDRFNBIGFyZSBub3QgcG9zdC1xdWFudHVtIHNlY3VyZSINCkFk ZCBFZERTQSB0byB0aGUgbGlzdC4NCg0KLSBTZWN0aW9uIDEuMSAiIGRlcGVuZCBvbiBkaXNjcmV0 ZSBsb2dhcml0aG0gb3IgZmFjdG9yaW5nIg0KSSBzdWdnZXN0aW9uICJkZXBlbmQgb24gdGhlIGhh cmRuZXNzIG9mIC4uLiAiIG9yIHNvbWV0aGluZyBzaW1pbGFyLg0KDQogLSAiVGhlIENCT1IgT2Jq ZWN0IFNpZ25pbmcgYW5kIEVuY3J5cHRpb24gKENPU0UpIFtSRkM4MTUyXSBzdXBwb3J0cyB0d28N CiAgIHNpZ25hdHVyZSBhbGdvcml0aG0gc2NoZW1lcy4iDQoNCiAgICBXaXRoIFJTQSBpdCBpcyBh bHJlYWR5IHRocmVlLiBNYXliZSByZW1vdmUgdGhpcyBzZW50ZW5jZT8NCg0KLSAgVGhlIG90aGVy IENPU0UgS2V5IHR5cGVzIGRlZmluZSBob3cgdGhlIHRoZSBwcml2YXRlIGFuZCBwdWJsaWMga2V5 IGlzIHN0b3JlZCBpbiB0aGUgQ09TRV9LZXkgc3RydWN0dXJlLiBUaGUgSFNTLUxNUyBrZXkgdHlw ZSBkb2VzIG5vdCBzZWVtIHRvIGRvIHRoYXQsIGluc3RlYWQgaXQgb25seSB3b3JrcyBhcyBhbiBp ZGVudGlmaWVyIG9mIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMvcHJpdmF0ZSBrZXkuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50 IHNob3VsZCBlaXRoZXINCg0KICAgICAgIC0gRGVmaW5lIGhvdyB0byBzdG9yZSB0aGUgcHVibGlj IGtleSBpbiB0aGUgQ09TRV9LZXkgc3RydWN0dXJlLCBvcg0KDQogICAgICAgLSBEZXNjcmliZSB0 aGF0IHRoZSBIU1MtTE1TIGtleSB0eXBlIGlzIG9ubHkgYW4gaWRlbnRpZmllciBhbmQgZG9lcyBu b3Qgc3RvcmUgdGhlIGtleSBwYWlyLiBJbiB0aGF0IGNhc2UgSSB0aGluayB0aGUNCiAgICAgICAg IGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uICJEZXNjcmlwdGlvbjogIFB1YmxpYyBrZXkgZm9yIEhTUy9MTVMgaGFzaC1i YXNlZCBkaWdpdGFsIHNpZ25hdHVyZSIgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNoYW5nZWQgYXMgd2VsbCB0bw0KICAg ICAgICAgIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIHdvcmQgImlkZW50aWZpZXIiLg0KDQotIEFzIHRoZSBhbGdvcml0 aG0gYW5kIENPU0VfS2V5IG9ubHkgY29udGFpbnMgdGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uICJIU1MtTE1TQCBh bmQgbm8gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSB0cmVlIHNpemUgYW5kIExNLU9UUyB2YXJp YW50IEkgYXNzdW1lIHRoZSBzaWduZXIgYW5kIHZlcmlmaWVyIGdldHMgdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biBlbHNld2hlcmUgKG9yIGRvZXMgbm90IG5lZWQgaXQpLiBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IHdvdWxkIGdvb2Qg aWYgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IHNob3J0bHkgY2xhcmlmaWVkIHRoaXMuDQoNCk5pdHM6DQoNCiJ7e1NIU319 Ig0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpKb2huDQoNCg== From nobody Thu Mar 21 23:40:03 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 0D1A1130EA0 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:40:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.308 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no 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 YnSyywWkTNS4 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:40:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 00F47130E83 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C795F300A42 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:21:41 -0400 (EDT) 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 J4FY6fH5ZPdX for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.55.33.121] (unknown [88.128.80.79]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10782300465; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:21:39 -0400 (EDT) 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: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 21:51:54 -0400 Cc: "cose@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: John Mattsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 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, 22 Mar 2019 06:40:02 -0000 John: > Some high level comments below. I need to read draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs = in more detail before giving more comments.=20 >=20 > - Section 1.1: I think some short info on the threat from Shor's = algorithm would be good. I don't think [BH2013] talked about quantum = computers. Right. [BH2013] is about advances in cryptanalysis. [PQC] is about the = consequences of a large-scale quantum computer. I suggest: If large-scale quantum computers are ever built, these computers will be able to break many of the public-key cryptosystems currently in use. A post-quantum cryptosystem [PQC] is a system that is secure against quantum computers that have more than a trivial number of quantum bits (qu-bits). It is open to conjecture when it will be feasible to build such computers; however, RSA, DSA, ECDSA, and EdDSA are all vulnerable if large-scale quantum computers come to pass. > - Section 1.1: "RSA, DSA, and ECDSA are not post-quantum secure" > Add EdDSA to the list. As above. > - Section 1.1 " depend on discrete logarithm or factoring" > I suggestion "depend on the hardness of ... " or something similar. Yes, indeed. I suggest: The HSS/LMS signature algorithm does not depend on the difficulty of discrete logarithm or factoring, as a result these algorithms are considered to be post-quantum secure. > - "The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] supports = two > signature algorithm schemes." >=20 > With RSA it is already three. Maybe remove this sentence? I am not talking about algorithms here. I am talking about full = signature and COSE_Sign0. > - The other COSE Key types define how the the private and public key = is stored in the COSE_Key structure. The HSS-LMS key type does not seem = to do that, instead it only works as an identifier of the public/private = key. I think the document should either >=20 > - Define how to store the public key in the COSE_Key structure, = or >=20 > - Describe that the HSS-LMS key type is only an identifier and = does not store the key pair. In that case I think the > description "Description: Public key for HSS/LMS hash-based = digital signature" should be changed as well to > include the word "identifier". Okay. The public key is an octet string. The internal structure of = that octet string is summarized in Section 2.2, and it is fully = specified in [HASHSIG]. Also, the IANA Considerations include a new = entry in the "COSE Key Types" registry for the HSS/LMS public key. > - As the algorithm and COSE_Key only contains the information = "HSS-LMS@ and no information regarding the tree size and LM-OTS variant = I assume the signer and verifier gets this information elsewhere (or = does not need it). I think it would good if the draft shortly clarified = this. The signature value encodes that information as summarized in Section 2, = and it is fully specified in [HASHSIG]. > Nits: >=20 > "{{SHS}}" Fixed. Russ From nobody Fri Mar 22 02:07:10 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 CB1F3130EC2 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:07:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=V1bC2TG5; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=S9eLS2xz 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 X_Cur4KSdGJg for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (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 9B08F130EC1 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:07:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1553245625; x=1555837625; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BSlcPlaHz5F4J2oX0lKoFWUW3t7PKyoXBtPzDe3HnXw=; b=V1bC2TG5Kd+IHbdc63vk66Vnp0SE0b3okXp1io0qLA/iJe458fe6cM/cahJlPzgS WuzIshgtI4NJTm6n8Diwsdw8GNx7q4NQ6wGmUOFziXpXKAwGQA+0Wa5tSjJVNKe0 VDEWCYAjn+MaTOYA64vsgGTT2oQfsUGRZ7p91r9QjiY=; X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-42aae9e000002218-2b-5c94a5b9474c Received: from ESESBMB505.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.118]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DC.97.08728.9B5A49C5; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:07:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.165) by ESESBMB505.ericsson.se (153.88.183.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:07:02 +0100 Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:07:02 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=BSlcPlaHz5F4J2oX0lKoFWUW3t7PKyoXBtPzDe3HnXw=; b=S9eLS2xzUcAUA9mslCEeXjcP9cPY8VL7D5bjnRRC3xINmHSb6mC3b/ZdTohGdcFs3gEVhx1HgX9QDEj3dt10aH9hgci5gap77WH+cgm5Utf/Za0Zsz17BeDbibb39yyLe1WNiN8cy12PUhQY29zZseGz9LCEOm8inVD8YqO3b5w= Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.22) by HE1PR07MB4299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.10; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:07:02 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8]) by HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1730.013; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:07:02 +0000 From: John Mattsson To: "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 Thread-Index: AQHU4I6c8y7W2G5GW0KQl9jzIlrMrg== Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:07:01 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.16.1.190220 authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=john.mattsson@ericsson.com; x-originating-ip: [82.214.46.143] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e688e7ff-250b-4ef1-15ca-08d6aea5bf34 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR07MB4299; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB4299: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 09840A4839 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(366004)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(486006)(14454004)(83716004)(25786009)(14444005)(2906002)(5660300002)(478600001)(86362001)(316002)(6116002)(97736004)(2501003)(105586002)(106356001)(58126008)(71190400001)(71200400001)(2351001)(256004)(6506007)(1730700003)(81166006)(66066001)(8676002)(81156014)(99286004)(3846002)(6436002)(102836004)(68736007)(26005)(5640700003)(82746002)(44832011)(33656002)(53936002)(6486002)(8936002)(6512007)(186003)(476003)(2616005)(7736002)(6916009)(305945005)(36756003)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB4299; H:HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: wFAQ8lVuAd25RbagChTvZcBtnPiaOVPZiNkln6b68RvRivTYAmgLCCxjzqToAbAKfm4S5LmozhPaR/3qDtSalLx7nvR4HmK9fWCVkJJLnNZZmJfp2uOsAb915TGXRkiwpAwuVztbhRuaRblKdiG0Cd0obiIEc2kjg6C7NdqMndf89/yeLlxJLPA5oQVUERHP8lg0hKBgT1J5D1yhSmfBpQU3Xobuc17hpsmnhPXRIGVYAqS5GRpI0wILIgfSMpBszs1f2u99snxTI40RrKyvWbnaZuDCiB6dy9Ru9Fz7RywBj+TmG829lTWhlPkJl7IFm9XTMuf4cWN61jQ7m6EOmxvUE7Sc+022NyqrhOvIbyUm7GFLUNL62BISGZUp4MRVmmEtadotnrffZHmZbIEMfyED9DfGwfdB9fIm0wKnibo= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e688e7ff-250b-4ef1-15ca-08d6aea5bf34 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Mar 2019 09:07:01.8281 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB4299 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpjleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbG9THfn0ikxBttfGlhM2zqV1YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGRMWKBVc4K/YevcxawPjHP4uRk4OCQETiWlXXjN1MXJxCAkc YZR4d7+TBcL5xigx+cYLRghnCZPE482TwDIsAhOYJX5tX88MkZnCJLG07xUbhPOAUaJ3zxJW kMlsAgYSc/c0sIHYIgLKEpOONYPFhQV0JK62f4aKG0o0b/7ICmHrSTw8+pYJxGYRUJW4+vIw WA2vgL1E084/YDajgJjE91NrwGqYBcQlbj2ZzwTxhYDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/+BzRQV0JfY0veA BaI3VqK1dTorRI2ixOl9K6DqZSUuze9mhLB9JQ5snMwGYd9klOjepwhha0lc2jwJqiZbYu3q DVBzZCSaDs5gBXleQuAvq0TP1lnsIAkhgVSJ5WtboRrkJFb1PmSBKDrPLLH8ASiIOYA+0JRY v0t/AqP2LCT/zELIQIQ9JGZ/3sACYStKTOl+yD4LHCyCEidnPmFZwMi6ilG0OLW4ODfdyFgv tSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwdRzc8lt3B+Pq146HGAU4GJV4eE2WTIkRYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMK7 K3pyjBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXHeP0KCMUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQZG066r r21W3XJeU7ry6ftlM2NeHzYT/L1R+vTakJyOdW5RyZWdRocY/n7P2VVqG1d/M2xTbq4Gj1VM 9/9pd0/OMwk3qpu3sfDubW6Z2XbKZQwXnscYnPn3J9N3nqPGoulnG5/EHvovd+r+kvraJV8z ZBX2VB1Z82aKhpBf1p7zQZ8FLwV7tR+arMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIACqDdgAZAwAA Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 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, 22 Mar 2019 09:07:10 -0000 VmVyeSB3ZWxsLXdyaXR0ZW4gYW5kIHdlbGwgbmVlZGVkIGRvY3VtZW50LiBNeSBjb21tZW50cyBv biB4NXUgYXJlIGxpa2VseSB0aGluZ3MgdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgYWxzbyBiZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4g dGhlIHNlY3VyaXR5IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zLiANCg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGUgeDV1IHRleHQgc2hv dWxkIGJlIGRpdmlkZWQgaW50byB0aGUgdHdvIHF1aXRlIGRpZmZlcmVudCB1c2UgY2FzZXM6DQoN Ci0gIElmIHRoZSBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBpcyB0aWVkIHRvIGFuIGV4aXN0aW5nIHRydXN0IGFuY2hv ciwgSSBzZWUgbm8gc2VjdXJpdHkgZGlmZmVyZW5jZXMgYmV0d2VlbiBzZW5kaW5nIHg1Y2hhaW4g aW4gdW5wcm90ZWN0ZWQgY29tcGFyZWQgdG8gc2VuZGluZyBhIFVSTCBpbiB1bnByb3RlY3RlZCBh bmQgZmV0Y2hpbmcgdGhlIGNlcnQgd2l0aCBhbiB1bnByb3RlY3RlZCBIVFRQIEdFVC4gSW4gYm90 aCBjYXNlcyBhbiBhdHRhY2tlciBjYW4gbW9kaWZ5IHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gSW4gdGhpcyBj YXNlIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyB0byBzZW5kIGluIHByb3RlY3RlZCBhbmQgdG8g dXNlIEhUVFBTIGNhbiBiZSByZW1vdmVkLg0KDQotIElmIHg1dSBpcyB1c2VkIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUg YSBuZXcgdHJ1c3QgYW5jaG9yLCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhcyBzdGF0ZWQgc3Ryb25nIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50 cyBvbiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZXIgKGludGVn cml0eSBwcm90ZWN0aW9uLCBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiwgY29uZmlndXJlZCBhcyB0cnVzdGVkKS4g SSBkbyBob3dldmVyIG5vdCBzZWUgd2h5IHRoZSB4NXUgVVJMIG5lZWRzIHRvIGJlIHNlbnQgaW4g cHJvdGVjdGVkLiB1bnByb3RlY3RlZCBzZWVtcyB0byB3b3JrIGVxdWFsbHkgZmluZS4NCg0KDQpJ IHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gYSBoZWFkZXIgcGFyYW1ldGVyIGZvciBDV1QgYXMgd2VsbA0KDQogICAi Y3d0OiAgVGhpcyBoZWFkZXIgYXR0cmlidXRlIGNvbnRhaW5zIGFuIENXVCINCg0KDQoiUmV2b2Nh dGlvbiBpbmZvPyINCg0KICAgT0NTUCBzdGFwbGluZyB3b3VsZCBiZSBuaWNlLiBTb21ldGhpbmcg bGlrZQ0KDQogICAib2NzcDogIFRoaXMgaGVhZGVyIGF0dHJpYnV0ZSBjb250YWlucyBvbmUgb3Ig bW9yZSBPQ1NQIHRva2VucyINCg0KCUNPU0VfT0NTUCA9IGJzdHIgLyBbIDIqb2NzcF90b2tlbjog YnN0ciBdDQoNCiAgIGFsdGVybmF0aXZlbHkgdGhlIE9DU1AgdG9rZW5zIGNvdWxkIGJlIHNlbnQg aW4gdGhlIENPU0VfWDUwOSBhcnJheQ0KDQoNCk5pdHM6DQoNCiAgIDZ0aXNoIC0+IDZUaVNDSA0K DQogICAnc2hhMjU2JyAtPiBTSEEtMjU2Lg0KDQogICBPTEQgIlRoZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgaXMgdGhl IHNhbWUgYXMgJ3g1YmFnJy4iDQogICBORVcgIlRoZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgaXMgdGhlIHNhbWUgYXMg J3g1Y2hhaW4nLiINCg0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpKb2huDQoNCg== From nobody Fri Mar 22 03:01:25 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 024A312B001 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KmUGYEYIMIZK for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4F0126C01 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (31.133.145.82) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:01:14 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'John Mattsson' , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:01:12 +0100 Message-ID: <01f601d4e096$30022470$90066d50$@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: AQJLiby/1LbgB+/6s0mN/MgzMfC/j6UqF0OQ Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [31.133.145.82] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 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, 22 Mar 2019 10:01:23 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE On Behalf Of John Mattsson > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 10:07 AM > To: cose@ietf.org > Subject: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 > > Very well-written and well needed document. My comments on x5u are > likely things that should also be discussed in the security considerations. > > I think the x5u text should be divided into the two quite different use cases: > > - If the certificate is tied to an existing trust anchor, I see no security > differences between sending x5chain in unprotected compared to sending a > URL in unprotected and fetching the cert with an unprotected HTTP GET. In > both cases an attacker can modify the information. In this case I think the > requirements to send in protected and to use HTTPS can be removed. > > - If x5u is used to provide a new trust anchor, there is as stated strong > requirements on the connection to the certificate distributer (integrity > protection, authentication, configured as trusted). I do however not see why > the x5u URL needs to be sent in protected. unprotected seems to work > equally fine. If I change the URL that is unprotected, then it would look for and use a different certificate. If this is a self-signed certificate then you may trust the distributer, but the signer is now different. I don't have the time at the moment, but I would suggest going through the JOSE mailing list where we hashed out the same argument in terms of always requiring https when using a URL. Jim > > > I would like to a header parameter for CWT as well > > "cwt: This header attribute contains an CWT" > > > "Revocation info?" > > OCSP stapling would be nice. Something like > > "ocsp: This header attribute contains one or more OCSP tokens" > > COSE_OCSP = bstr / [ 2*ocsp_token: bstr ] > > alternatively the OCSP tokens could be sent in the COSE_X509 array > > > Nits: > > 6tish -> 6TiSCH > > 'sha256' -> SHA-256. > > OLD "The structure is the same as 'x5bag'." > NEW "The structure is the same as 'x5chain'." > > > Cheers, > John > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > COSE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose From nobody Fri Mar 22 03:26:20 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 C1C17130EEE for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=SpZwnmjR; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=VJkLuoO1 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 xgoCwf5xL5sp for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 7DCDB130EAB for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:26:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1553250363; x=1555842363; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Jukp5l1JCqQIpcWNe2VrBl+NG53yyqc5tLztvkntPm8=; b=SpZwnmjRvhENbxFklgWE0poiapO/s2ndXneRKmc7Py4iZgiwNEiWXSaQQxTN0YHo YerKxPfGT+KcqwN0f/seg5OrIiEMrbDADS8pwDvD6WOGw9ZU55xKAFMLP8PyoI0B 9jnNQe1MQHM0XzbQ0+E4bBlLZJ970mMsGTDz6DWIoYM=; X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-491169e000001645-b6-5c94b83be79a Received: from ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.115]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E9.B8.05701.B38B49C5; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:26:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESBMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.171) by ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:26:01 +0100 Received: from EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESBMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:26:01 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Jukp5l1JCqQIpcWNe2VrBl+NG53yyqc5tLztvkntPm8=; b=VJkLuoO1m5CpSqTWurbp/NFO+ayVaYI3F84+VLhBMO56ZeP4L3bqeNvqcD3L7xz3QRa9HEv+SR4AxepoCPDLg3pfuIBjNW/1iRgvPcihsq2URY/prl0qFDpGY/cqHSXROh4iNPEUEb4W3cmDzCr9ZxRybWkJaUDIJ0+Pb8XQ+Pc= Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.166.22) by HE1PR07MB4378.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.167.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.9; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:25:59 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8]) by HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:9258:766:85a8%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1730.013; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:25:59 +0000 From: John Mattsson To: Russ Housley CC: "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 Thread-Index: AQHU4B32R9GV+Fyim0mAnuvESWE626YW42oAgACgZAA= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:25:59 +0000 Message-ID: <8EFF0E2A-FAB4-4FD2-BE0A-30783F69EE8F@ericsson.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.16.1.190220 authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=john.mattsson@ericsson.com; x-originating-ip: [82.214.46.143] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 72870206-95f5-43a0-6482-08d6aeb0c6ef x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR07MB4378; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB4378: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 09840A4839 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(478600001)(82746002)(58126008)(3846002)(316002)(6246003)(4326008)(486006)(99286004)(25786009)(33656002)(6486002)(5660300002)(14454004)(6436002)(83716004)(53546011)(2906002)(6506007)(6116002)(44832011)(229853002)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(76176011)(6512007)(6916009)(86362001)(68736007)(53936002)(102836004)(8676002)(256004)(186003)(446003)(11346002)(36756003)(476003)(26005)(97736004)(2616005)(66066001)(305945005)(66574012)(106356001)(105586002)(7736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB4378; H:HE1PR07MB4169.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 4vTGjaZxCv0LQhM3UqsXq1T8Rw0w4NHVsoSAytPyoMSNG9u4uclqEtMcQAVeHCY2boOeOvj38OUwxpB7mqHLOPpi0uIer3Tq+rU7rqH8JFRCgtmuHXe0qsBz0qtVCX6cJMC+oX6yLUWvrdWcLGnuqi4m8ZaGw9R07Heuk1VnYSbFwUuzXp7dG7B7VP1/BxI3ZDyfLavVb4HNS1x2ULyq4ECBuX2v4dHHjg1cLAcaAt1FPJWhTJuFbTkTsDol9d2/Hq6nPUXM9prUkZqLJ0KqMge/jFUfN1UzD1QbskhDvo2JIHE7zxveCsRrPCa1FuxujE4zpM9lK+fUXdcR/gykw63j07gubQ/8sOE3EV/2Idnw/xacwMwiBa6AmCbf/R7b/kVHFpvNDZSPkKTysMGjGGvfvaNXKBGQVPUQjXtwQfM= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 72870206-95f5-43a0-6482-08d6aeb0c6ef X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Mar 2019 10:25:59.2617 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB4378 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA02Sa0iTYRTHed7L9moNH980D14iJyIZeUPCyyj7UA2hMIiQMmrpi4rzwl41 jSIzFt4bU/NWTHRZiOUlbzkrHPZBrbxEyNTIcDFdIZmpaBm5vQv69jvn/M/5P+fwMCR7l/Zk UjOyOVWGQikVOVN18X38oej+qoQQg3lfxL2eajrCumgSxxByvX6TkLfO/aTjiPPOsiROmZrL qYKPXHZOafsxSGfNxOY1LOhEBcgsL0FODOBw6Ozoo0uQM8PiYQT9qy2kEKwjUK++FQmBnoDR bq09oLCGhO31h46KloDppadICOYRrFRuiWyTRTgEHgwW2NkNB8C2bkJsYxL7wa2OKcrGe3A0 WHUTtKCRQWFxGRI4CgY+VezkmR07f5gf8LKlJfgoPG9eJG1pFufA0OQVGzrhGDC+sSsQ3gsb o22EYOQBM2YdIayJQT84TgrsDksLf+ym7jgYuivmKaH3IqjVNbSg8YWxl48deh+Y0pUigU/B SoXBfiHAJgR3yrUOg0Bo6P3g4DS4/eUbJbA3FA7V0kLDMg3Fm632qSzm4NETNdKgoPr/Hlu/ sw+JD0D7QLCQlsOgzkgL7AtVpZ/F9fZLuMJInZlqRHQrcuc5nk9PDgsL4lSpiTyfmRGUwWV3 oZ1vMtT9K6ofDVmOGRFmkHS3JFRflcDSilw+P92IgCGlbpKBC5UJrCRJkX+NU2VeUuUoOd6I vBhK6iH5zbomsDhZkc2lcVwWp/pXJRgnzwJU/d490l8t/ni/d/+W69qcN99wMrKp2NPUdT0u yzrb/ky2Nn36zHhiY3zTbO3iq0mnc+01r9MOxlSE9ytd3lnONlsNN9tkh8O9viYG7NL63Jgt uOqnG/M7UaaE3oaeepPFiCjjd8vx8tj5opFObR520VS+2DAEdxaxw6XLshaNlOJTFKGBpIpX /AUdIJTRIgMAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 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, 22 Mar 2019 10:26:19 -0000 VGhhbmtzIFJ1c3MsDQoNCllvdXIgc3VnZ2VzdGVkIHVwZGF0ZXMgc2VlbXMgZ3JlYXQuDQoNCj4+ IC0gIlRoZSBDQk9SIE9iamVjdCBTaWduaW5nIGFuZCBFbmNyeXB0aW9uIChDT1NFKSBbUkZDODE1 Ml0gc3VwcG9ydHMgdHdvDQo+PiAgIHNpZ25hdHVyZSBhbGdvcml0aG0gc2NoZW1lcy4iDQo+PiAN Cj4+ICAgIFdpdGggUlNBIGl0IGlzIGFscmVhZHkgdGhyZWUuIE1heWJlIHJlbW92ZSB0aGlzIHNl bnRlbmNlPw0KDQo+SSBhbSBub3QgdGFsa2luZyBhYm91dCBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGhlcmUuICBJIGFt IHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQgZnVsbCBzaWduYXR1cmUgYW5kIENPU0VfU2lnbjAuDQoNCk9rLCBJIHNl ZSB0aGF0IHRoZSB0ZXJtaW5vbG9neSBpcyB0YWtlbiBmcm9tIFNlY3Rpb24gOCBvZiBSRkMgODE1 MjoNCg0KICAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBzaWduYXR1cmUgYWxnb3JpdGhtIHNjaGVtZXMuICBUaGUg Zmlyc3QgaXMgc2lnbmF0dXJlDQogICB3aXRoIGFwcGVuZGl4LiAgSW4gdGhpcyBzY2hlbWUsIHRo ZSBtZXNzYWdlIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgcHJvY2Vzc2VkIGFuZA0KICAgYSBzaWduYXR1cmUgaXMgcHJv ZHVjZWQ7IHRoZSBzaWduYXR1cmUgaXMgY2FsbGVkIHRoZSBhcHBlbmRpeC4gIFRoaXMNCiAgIGlz IHRoZSBzY2hlbWUgdXNlZCBieSBhbGdvcml0aG1zIHN1Y2ggYXMgRUNEU0EgYW5kIHRoZSBSU0EN CiAgIFByb2JhYmlsaXN0aWMgU2lnbmF0dXJlIFNjaGVtZSAoUlNBU1NBLVBTUykuICAoSW4gZmFj dCwgdGhlIFNTQSBpbg0KICAgUlNBU1NBLVBTUyBzdGFuZHMgZm9yIFNpZ25hdHVyZSBTY2hlbWUg d2l0aCBBcHBlbmRpeC4pDQoNCkkgZG8gaG93ZXZlciBmaW5kIHRoZSB0ZXJtaW5vbG9neSBxdWl0 ZSBjb25mdXNpbmcgYXMgdGhlIHRlcm0gInNjaGVtZSIgaXMgdXNlZCBvbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbGV2 ZWxzLiBCdXQgdGhhdCBpcyBtb3JlIGEgY29tbWVudCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1jb3NlLXJmYzgx NTJiaXMtc3RydWN0IHRoYW4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1jb3NlLWhhc2gtc2lnLg0KDQo+PiAtICBUaGUg b3RoZXIgQ09TRSBLZXkgdHlwZXMgZGVmaW5lIGhvdyB0aGUgdGhlIHByaXZhdGUgYW5kIHB1Ymxp YyBrZXkgaXMgc3RvcmVkIGluIHRoZSBDT1NFX0tleSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUuIFRoZSBIU1MtTE1TIGtl eSB0eXBlIGRvZXMgbm90IHNlZW0gdG8gZG8gdGhhdCwgaW5zdGVhZCBpdCBvbmx5IHdvcmtzIGFz IGFuIGlkZW50aWZpZXIgb2YgdGhlIHB1YmxpYy9wcml2YXRlIGtleS4gSSB0aGluayB0aGUgZG9j dW1lbnQgc2hvdWxkIGVpdGhlcg0KPj4gDQo+PiAgICAgICAtIERlZmluZSBob3cgdG8gc3RvcmUg dGhlIHB1YmxpYyBrZXkgaW4gdGhlIENPU0VfS2V5IHN0cnVjdHVyZSwgb3INCj4+IA0KPj4gICAg ICAgLSBEZXNjcmliZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBIU1MtTE1TIGtleSB0eXBlIGlzIG9ubHkgYW4gaWRlbnRp ZmllciBhbmQgZG9lcyBub3Qgc3RvcmUgdGhlIGtleSBwYWlyLiBJbiB0aGF0IGNhc2UgSSB0aGlu ayB0aGUNCj4+ICAgICAgICAgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gIkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uOiAgUHVibGljIGtleSBm b3IgSFNTL0xNUyBoYXNoLWJhc2VkIGRpZ2l0YWwgc2lnbmF0dXJlIiBzaG91bGQgYmUgY2hhbmdl ZCBhcyB3ZWxsIHRvDQo+PiAgICAgICAgICBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSB3b3JkICJpZGVudGlmaWVyIi4N Cj4gICAgDQo+ICAgT2theS4gIFRoZSBwdWJsaWMga2V5IGlzIGFuIG9jdGV0IHN0cmluZy4gIFRo ZSBpbnRlcm5hbCBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgb2YgdGhhdCBvY3RldCBzdHJpbmcgaXMgc3VtbWFyaXplZCBp biBTZWN0aW9uIDIuMiwgYW5kIGl0IGlzIGZ1bGx5IHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiBbSEFTSFNJR10uICBB bHNvLCB0aGUgSUFOQSBDb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBpbmNsdWRlIGEgbmV3IGVudHJ5IGluIHRoZSAi Q09TRSBLZXkgVHlwZXMiIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGZvciB0aGUgSFNTL0xNUyBwdWJsaWMga2V5Lg0KPiAg ICANCj4+IC0gQXMgdGhlIGFsZ29yaXRobSBhbmQgQ09TRV9LZXkgb25seSBjb250YWlucyB0aGUg aW5mb3JtYXRpb24gIkhTUy1MTVNAIGFuZCBubyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhlIHRy ZWUgc2l6ZSBhbmQgTE0tT1RTIHZhcmlhbnQgSSBhc3N1bWUgdGhlIHNpZ25lciBhbmQgdmVyaWZp ZXIgZ2V0cyB0aGlzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGVsc2V3aGVyZSAob3IgZG9lcyBub3QgbmVlZCBpdCku IEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgd291bGQgZ29vZCBpZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgc2hvcnRseSBjbGFyaWZpZWQgdGhp cy4NCj4gICAgDQo+VGhlIHNpZ25hdHVyZSB2YWx1ZSBlbmNvZGVzIHRoYXQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g YXMgc3VtbWFyaXplZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDIsIGFuZCBpdCBpcyBmdWxseSBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4g W0hBU0hTSUddLg0KDQpJIGhhdmUgbm8gZG91YnQgdGhhdCB0aGUgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBpcyBj b3JyZWN0LCBhbmQgdGhhdCBldmVyeXRoaW5nIGlzIGZ1bGx5IHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiBbSEFTSFNJ R10uIEJUVywgU2VjdGlvbnMgMi4xIC0gMi4zIGdpdmUgYW4gZXhjZWxsZW50IHN1bW1hcnkgb2Yg SEFTSFNJRy4gTXkgZmVlbGluZyB3YXMganVzdCB0aGF0IHNvbWUgbW9yZSBzaG9ydCBoaWdoIGxl dmVsIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHdvdWxkIGJlIGhlbHBmdWwgZm9yIGRldmVsb3BlcnMgaW1wbGVtZW50 aW5nIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gU3VjaCBhIGRldmVsb3BlciB3b3VsZCBsaWtlbHkgbm90IGhhdmUgYW55 IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgb2YgW0hBU0hTSUddIGFuZCB3b3VsZCBsaWtlbHkgdGFrZSBhIFtIQVNI U0lHXSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBmcm9tIHRoZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBhbmQgdHJ5IHRvIGludGVncmF0 ZSBpdCBpbiB0aGVpciBDT1NFIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLiBFdmVuIGZvciBhIGRldmVsb3BlciB0 aGF0IGhhcyBwcmV2aW91c2x5IGltcGxlbWVudGVkIEVDRFNBIG9yIFJTQSBzaWduYXR1cmVzLCBb SEFTSFNJR10gd29ya3MgcXVpdGUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGFzIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBtYW55IHB1YmxpYy9w cml2YXRlIGtleXMgcGFpcnMgYW5kIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMvcHJpdmF0ZSBrZXkgcGFpcnMgYXJlIG5v dCBzdG9yZWQgaW4gdGhlIENPU0VfS2V5IHN0cnVjdHVyZSBhcyB3aXRoIFJTQSBhbmQgRUNEU0Eu DQoNCkkgdGhpbmsgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgZ29vZCBpZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgZ2F2ZSBzb21lIG1vcmUg Z3VpZGFuY2UgdG8gYSBkZXZlbG9wZXIgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGludGVncmF0ZSBhbiBleGlzdGluZyBI QVNIU0lHIGxpYnJhcnkgaW4gdGhlaXIgQ09TRSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbi4gQnV0IHRoYXQgaXMg anVzdCBhIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24uIEkgZG8gbm90IGhhdmUgc3Ryb25nIGZlZWxpbmdzIGFib3V0IHRo aXMuIEkgaGF2ZSBub3QgdHJpZWQgdG8gYWN0dWFsbHkgaW1wbGVtZW50IGl0LCBhbmQgSSBkbyBu b3QgeWV0IGhhdmUgdGhlIGRldGFpbGVkIGtub3dsZWRnZSBvZiBIQVNIU0lHIHRvIHN1Z2dlc3Qg d2hhdCBzdWNoIGd1aWRhbmNlIHdvdWxkIGFjdHVhbGx5IHNheS4NCg0KQ2hlZXJzLA0KSm9obg0K DQrvu78tLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogUnVzcyBIb3VzbGV5IDxob3Vz bGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbT4NCkRhdGU6IEZyaWRheSwgMjIgTWFyY2ggMjAxOSBhdCAwNzo0MA0K VG86IEpvaG4gTWF0dHNzb24gPGpvaG4ubWF0dHNzb25AZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPg0KQ2M6ICJjb3Nl QGlldGYub3JnIiA8Y29zZUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbQ09TRV0gQ29tbWVudHMg b24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1jb3NlLWhhc2gtc2lnLTAxDQoNCiAgICBKb2huOg0KICAgIA0KICAgID4g U29tZSBoaWdoIGxldmVsIGNvbW1lbnRzIGJlbG93LiBJIG5lZWQgdG8gcmVhZCBkcmFmdC1tY2dy ZXctaGFzaC1zaWdzIGluIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlsIGJlZm9yZSBnaXZpbmcgbW9yZSBjb21tZW50cy4g DQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+IC0gU2VjdGlvbiAxLjE6IEkgdGhpbmsgc29tZSBzaG9ydCBpbmZvIG9u IHRoZSB0aHJlYXQgZnJvbSBTaG9yJ3MgYWxnb3JpdGhtIHdvdWxkIGJlIGdvb2QuIEkgZG9uJ3Qg dGhpbmsgW0JIMjAxM10gdGFsa2VkIGFib3V0IHF1YW50dW0gY29tcHV0ZXJzLg0KICAgIA0KICAg IFJpZ2h0LiAgW0JIMjAxM10gaXMgYWJvdXQgYWR2YW5jZXMgaW4gY3J5cHRhbmFseXNpcy4gW1BR Q10gaXMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlcyBvZiBhIGxhcmdlLXNjYWxlIHF1YW50dW0gY29t cHV0ZXIuICBJIHN1Z2dlc3Q6DQogICAgDQogICAgICAgSWYgbGFyZ2Utc2NhbGUgcXVhbnR1bSBj b21wdXRlcnMgYXJlIGV2ZXIgYnVpbHQsIHRoZXNlIGNvbXB1dGVycyB3aWxsDQogICAgICAgYmUg YWJsZSB0byBicmVhayBtYW55IG9mIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMta2V5IGNyeXB0b3N5c3RlbXMgY3VycmVu dGx5IGluDQogICAgICAgdXNlLiAgQSBwb3N0LXF1YW50dW0gY3J5cHRvc3lzdGVtIFtQUUNdIGlz IGEgc3lzdGVtIHRoYXQgaXMgc2VjdXJlDQogICAgICAgYWdhaW5zdCBxdWFudHVtIGNvbXB1dGVy cyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgbW9yZSB0aGFuIGEgdHJpdmlhbCBudW1iZXIgb2YNCiAgICAgICBxdWFudHVt IGJpdHMgKHF1LWJpdHMpLiAgSXQgaXMgb3BlbiB0byBjb25qZWN0dXJlIHdoZW4gaXQgd2lsbCBi ZQ0KICAgICAgIGZlYXNpYmxlIHRvIGJ1aWxkIHN1Y2ggY29tcHV0ZXJzOyBob3dldmVyLCBSU0Es IERTQSwgRUNEU0EsIGFuZCBFZERTQQ0KICAgICAgIGFyZSBhbGwgdnVsbmVyYWJsZSBpZiBsYXJn ZS1zY2FsZSBxdWFudHVtIGNvbXB1dGVycyBjb21lIHRvIHBhc3MuDQogICAgDQogICAgPiAtIFNl Y3Rpb24gMS4xOiAiUlNBLCBEU0EsIGFuZCBFQ0RTQSBhcmUgbm90IHBvc3QtcXVhbnR1bSBzZWN1 cmUiDQogICAgPiBBZGQgRWREU0EgdG8gdGhlIGxpc3QuDQogICAgDQogICAgQXMgYWJvdmUuDQog ICAgDQogICAgPiAtIFNlY3Rpb24gMS4xICIgZGVwZW5kIG9uIGRpc2NyZXRlIGxvZ2FyaXRobSBv ciBmYWN0b3JpbmciDQogICAgPiBJIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gImRlcGVuZCBvbiB0aGUgaGFyZG5lc3Mg b2YgLi4uICIgb3Igc29tZXRoaW5nIHNpbWlsYXIuDQogICAgDQogICAgWWVzLCBpbmRlZWQuICBJ IHN1Z2dlc3Q6DQogICAgDQogICAgICAgVGhlIEhTUy9MTVMgc2lnbmF0dXJlIGFsZ29yaXRobSBk b2VzIG5vdCBkZXBlbmQgb24gdGhlIGRpZmZpY3VsdHkgb2YNCiAgICAgICBkaXNjcmV0ZSBsb2dh cml0aG0gb3IgZmFjdG9yaW5nLCBhcyBhIHJlc3VsdCB0aGVzZSBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGFyZQ0KICAg ICAgIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgdG8gYmUgcG9zdC1xdWFudHVtIHNlY3VyZS4NCiAgICANCiAgICA+IC0g IlRoZSBDQk9SIE9iamVjdCBTaWduaW5nIGFuZCBFbmNyeXB0aW9uIChDT1NFKSBbUkZDODE1Ml0g c3VwcG9ydHMgdHdvDQogICAgPiAgIHNpZ25hdHVyZSBhbGdvcml0aG0gc2NoZW1lcy4iDQogICAg PiANCiAgICA+ICAgIFdpdGggUlNBIGl0IGlzIGFscmVhZHkgdGhyZWUuIE1heWJlIHJlbW92ZSB0 aGlzIHNlbnRlbmNlPw0KICAgIA0KICAgIEkgYW0gbm90IHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQgYWxnb3JpdGht cyBoZXJlLiAgSSBhbSB0YWxraW5nIGFib3V0IGZ1bGwgc2lnbmF0dXJlIGFuZCBDT1NFX1NpZ24w Lg0KICAgIA0KICAgID4gLSAgVGhlIG90aGVyIENPU0UgS2V5IHR5cGVzIGRlZmluZSBob3cgdGhl IHRoZSBwcml2YXRlIGFuZCBwdWJsaWMga2V5IGlzIHN0b3JlZCBpbiB0aGUgQ09TRV9LZXkgc3Ry dWN0dXJlLiBUaGUgSFNTLUxNUyBrZXkgdHlwZSBkb2VzIG5vdCBzZWVtIHRvIGRvIHRoYXQsIGlu c3RlYWQgaXQgb25seSB3b3JrcyBhcyBhbiBpZGVudGlmaWVyIG9mIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMvcHJpdmF0 ZSBrZXkuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHNob3VsZCBlaXRoZXINCiAgICA+IA0KICAgID4g ICAgICAgLSBEZWZpbmUgaG93IHRvIHN0b3JlIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMga2V5IGluIHRoZSBDT1NFX0tl eSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUsIG9yDQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+ICAgICAgIC0gRGVzY3JpYmUgdGhhdCB0aGUg SFNTLUxNUyBrZXkgdHlwZSBpcyBvbmx5IGFuIGlkZW50aWZpZXIgYW5kIGRvZXMgbm90IHN0b3Jl IHRoZSBrZXkgcGFpci4gSW4gdGhhdCBjYXNlIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlDQogICAgPiAgICAgICAgIGRl c2NyaXB0aW9uICJEZXNjcmlwdGlvbjogIFB1YmxpYyBrZXkgZm9yIEhTUy9MTVMgaGFzaC1iYXNl ZCBkaWdpdGFsIHNpZ25hdHVyZSIgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNoYW5nZWQgYXMgd2VsbCB0bw0KICAgID4g ICAgICAgICAgaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUgd29yZCAiaWRlbnRpZmllciIuDQogICAgDQogICAgT2theS4g IFRoZSBwdWJsaWMga2V5IGlzIGFuIG9jdGV0IHN0cmluZy4gIFRoZSBpbnRlcm5hbCBzdHJ1Y3R1 cmUgb2YgdGhhdCBvY3RldCBzdHJpbmcgaXMgc3VtbWFyaXplZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDIuMiwgYW5k IGl0IGlzIGZ1bGx5IHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiBbSEFTSFNJR10uICBBbHNvLCB0aGUgSUFOQSBDb25z aWRlcmF0aW9ucyBpbmNsdWRlIGEgbmV3IGVudHJ5IGluIHRoZSAiQ09TRSBLZXkgVHlwZXMiIHJl Z2lzdHJ5IGZvciB0aGUgSFNTL0xNUyBwdWJsaWMga2V5Lg0KICAgIA0KICAgID4gLSBBcyB0aGUg YWxnb3JpdGhtIGFuZCBDT1NFX0tleSBvbmx5IGNvbnRhaW5zIHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiAiSFNT LUxNU0AgYW5kIG5vIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGUgdHJlZSBzaXplIGFuZCBMTS1P VFMgdmFyaWFudCBJIGFzc3VtZSB0aGUgc2lnbmVyIGFuZCB2ZXJpZmllciBnZXRzIHRoaXMgaW5m b3JtYXRpb24gZWxzZXdoZXJlIChvciBkb2VzIG5vdCBuZWVkIGl0KS4gSSB0aGluayBpdCB3b3Vs ZCBnb29kIGlmIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBzaG9ydGx5IGNsYXJpZmllZCB0aGlzLg0KICAgIA0KICAgIFRo ZSBzaWduYXR1cmUgdmFsdWUgZW5jb2RlcyB0aGF0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFzIHN1bW1hcml6ZWQg aW4gU2VjdGlvbiAyLCBhbmQgaXQgaXMgZnVsbHkgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIFtIQVNIU0lHXS4NCiAg ICANCiAgICA+IE5pdHM6DQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+ICJ7e1NIU319Ig0KICAgIA0KICAgIEZpeGVk Lg0KICAgIA0KICAgIFJ1c3MNCiAgICANCiAgICANCg0K From nobody Fri Mar 22 03:33:09 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 0F49B130EDD for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:33:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 ewmr7ZJbZ2rC for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:33:03 -0700 (PDT) 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 B72331277CE for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE65300AA7 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:14:44 -0400 (EDT) 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 q10y8oiNe18i for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.4.165] (unknown [62.168.35.68]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 258C5300250; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:14:43 -0400 (EDT) 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: <8EFF0E2A-FAB4-4FD2-BE0A-30783F69EE8F@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:32:58 -0400 Cc: "cose@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9FEDA675-9F24-4E44-877B-49A3FB70C486@vigilsec.com> References: <8EFF0E2A-FAB4-4FD2-BE0A-30783F69EE8F@ericsson.com> To: John Mattsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Comments on draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01 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, 22 Mar 2019 10:33:09 -0000 John: Thanks for the review and continued dialogue. >=20 > Thanks Russ, >=20 > Your suggested updates seems great. >=20 >>> - "The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] supports = two >>> signature algorithm schemes." >>>=20 >>> With RSA it is already three. Maybe remove this sentence? >=20 >> I am not talking about algorithms here. I am talking about full = signature and COSE_Sign0. >=20 > Ok, I see that the terminology is taken from Section 8 of RFC 8152: >=20 > There are two signature algorithm schemes. The first is signature > with appendix. In this scheme, the message content is processed and > a signature is produced; the signature is called the appendix. This > is the scheme used by algorithms such as ECDSA and the RSA > Probabilistic Signature Scheme (RSASSA-PSS). (In fact, the SSA in > RSASSA-PSS stands for Signature Scheme with Appendix.) >=20 > I do however find the terminology quite confusing as the term "scheme" = is used on different levels. But that is more a comment for = draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct than draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig. I am pleased to align with whatever term gets used in rfc8152bis. >>> - The other COSE Key types define how the the private and public = key is stored in the COSE_Key structure. The HSS-LMS key type does not = seem to do that, instead it only works as an identifier of the = public/private key. I think the document should either >>>=20 >>> - Define how to store the public key in the COSE_Key structure, = or >>>=20 >>> - Describe that the HSS-LMS key type is only an identifier and = does not store the key pair. In that case I think the >>> description "Description: Public key for HSS/LMS hash-based = digital signature" should be changed as well to >>> include the word "identifier". >>=20 >> Okay. The public key is an octet string. The internal structure of = that octet string is summarized in Section 2.2, and it is fully = specified in [HASHSIG]. Also, the IANA Considerations include a new = entry in the "COSE Key Types" registry for the HSS/LMS public key. >>=20 >>> - As the algorithm and COSE_Key only contains the information = "HSS-LMS@ and no information regarding the tree size and LM-OTS variant = I assume the signer and verifier gets this information elsewhere (or = does not need it). I think it would good if the draft shortly clarified = this. >>=20 >> The signature value encodes that information as summarized in Section = 2, and it is fully specified in [HASHSIG]. >=20 > I have no doubt that the specification is correct, and that everything = is fully specified in [HASHSIG]. BTW, Sections 2.1 - 2.3 give an = excellent summary of HASHSIG. My feeling was just that some more short = high level description would be helpful for developers implementing the = draft. Such a developer would likely not have any understanding of = [HASHSIG] and would likely take a [HASHSIG] implementation from the = Internet and try to integrate it in their COSE implementation. Even for = a developer that has previously implemented ECDSA or RSA signatures, = [HASHSIG] works quite different as there are many public/private keys = pairs and the public/private key pairs are not stored in the COSE_Key = structure as with RSA and ECDSA. >=20 > I think it would be good if the draft gave some more guidance to a = developer trying to integrate an existing HASHSIG library in their COSE = implementation. But that is just a suggestion. I do not have strong = feelings about this. I have not tried to actually implement it, and I do = not yet have the detailed knowledge of HASHSIG to suggest what such = guidance would actually say. I want to help implementations, but I am not sure what else to say here. = The HSS/LMS public key appears at the apex of the tree. Russ= From nobody Sat Mar 23 10:27:02 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 1313212872C for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tEdy8HLuhpqE for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B2A1277DE for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 46604B81B5D; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:26:49 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf@augustcellars.com, kaduk@mit.edu, ekr@rtfm.com, ivaylo@ackl.io, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: marco.tiloca@ri.se, cose@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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 Mar 2019 17:27:00 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8152, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5669 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Marco Tiloca Section: 16.7 Original Text ------------- Value: This is the value used to identify the curve. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer, or a string. Description: This field contains a brief description of the curve. References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for the curve if one exists. Corrected Text -------------- Value: This is the value used to identify the key type. These values MUST be unique. The values are positive integers. Description: This field contains a brief description of the key type. References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for the key type if one exists. Notes ----- This Registry is about Key Types, but the current text refers to curves. The value identifying a key type can be only a positive integer. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) -------------------------------------- Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : J. Schaad Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Sat Mar 23 15:11:33 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 EFB3C12AF80 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0zmLYhdYQCK for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 98B061200B3 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2NMBJZB011633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:11:22 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 17:11:19 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: RFC Errata System Cc: ietf@augustcellars.com, ekr@rtfm.com, ivaylo@ackl.io, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net, marco.tiloca@ri.se, cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> References: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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 Mar 2019 22:11:32 -0000 On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:26:49AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8152, > "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5669 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Marco Tiloca > > Section: 16.7 > > Original Text > ------------- > Value: This is the value used to identify the curve. These values > MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative > integer, or a string. > > Description: This field contains a brief description of the curve. > > References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for > the curve if one exists. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Value: This is the value used to identify the key type. These values > MUST be unique. The values are positive integers. > > Description: This field contains a brief description of the key type. > > References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for > the key type if one exists. > > Notes > ----- > This Registry is about Key Types, but the current text refers to curves. > > The value identifying a key type can be only a positive integer. This seems pretty straightforward, but I'm not entirely sure how to confirm that the key types are always positive integers (with 0 reserved). Thanks, Ben From nobody Sun Mar 24 01:28:29 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 B303E127971 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:28:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zVuROu3im8xp for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8E461277D8 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (62.168.35.67) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:27:56 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' , 'RFC Errata System' CC: , , , , References: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:27:50 +0100 Message-ID: <02bc01d4e21b$7b5f6230$721e2690$@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: AQFSpi/0xSBkWJphI5Zg67wj20UyRgMJo53YpwadOyA= Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [62.168.35.67] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:28:28 -0000 In the CBOR encoding it is pretty simple as non-negative integers and negative integers are encoded as separate types. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:11 PM > To: RFC Errata System > Cc: ietf@augustcellars.com; ekr@rtfm.com; ivaylo@ackl.io; > linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; marco.tiloca@ri.se; cose@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:26:49AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8152, "CBOR > > Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5669 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Marco Tiloca > > > > Section: 16.7 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > Value: This is the value used to identify the curve. These values > > MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative > > integer, or a string. > > > > Description: This field contains a brief description of the curve. > > > > References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for > > the curve if one exists. > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > Value: This is the value used to identify the key type. These values > > MUST be unique. The values are positive integers. > > > > Description: This field contains a brief description of the key type. > > > > References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for > > the key type if one exists. > > > > Notes > > ----- > > This Registry is about Key Types, but the current text refers to curves. > > > > The value identifying a key type can be only a positive integer. > > This seems pretty straightforward, but I'm not entirely sure how to confirm > that the key types are always positive integers (with 0 reserved). > > Thanks, > > Ben From nobody Sun Mar 24 06:48:23 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 638A8127AC2 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 06:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hk_sshVlURiN for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 AA0AE12788C for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2ODm8GQ013533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:48:10 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:48:08 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Jim Schaad Cc: "'RFC Errata System'" , ekr@rtfm.com, ivaylo@ackl.io, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net, marco.tiloca@ri.se, cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <20190324134808.GL77890@kduck.mit.edu> References: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> <02bc01d4e21b$7b5f6230$721e2690$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02bc01d4e21b$7b5f6230$721e2690$@augustcellars.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:48:21 -0000 On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote: > In the CBOR encoding it is pretty simple as non-negative integers and > negative integers are encoded as separate types. Right. But if I look at, e.g., COSE_Key = { 1 => tstr / int, ; kty ? 2 => bstr, ; kid ? 3 => tstr / int, ; alg ? 4 => [+ (tstr / int) ], ; key_ops ? 5 => bstr, ; Base IV * label => values } that has 'kty' as tstr / int, and 'int' is defined as either an unsigned integer or a negative integer, so that doesn't really force it to be in the unsigned space. (I'm not terribly sure that that's the right CDDL in which values from the registry go, though.) -Ben From nobody Sun Mar 24 07:16:18 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 631F412796F for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3Wydn_DSDFx for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E78BD1277C9 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 07:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (31.133.136.100) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 07:16:04 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' CC: 'RFC Errata System' , , , , , References: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> <02bc01d4e21b$7b5f6230$721e2690$@augustcellars.com> <20190324134808.GL77890@kduck.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20190324134808.GL77890@kduck.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:16:02 +0100 Message-ID: <02d601d4e24c$1eea2400$5cbe6c00$@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: AQFSpi/0xSBkWJphI5Zg67wj20UyRgMJo53YAeXJj5UCFRbBy6bnJ4tw Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [31.133.136.100] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:16:17 -0000 Yeah, that is a cut and paste error. I just make everything be the generic type and forgot to clean them down. Should do that as part of the bis update. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 2:48 PM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: 'RFC Errata System' ; ekr@rtfm.com; > ivaylo@ackl.io; linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; marco.tiloca@ri.se; > cose@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote: > > In the CBOR encoding it is pretty simple as non-negative integers and > > negative integers are encoded as separate types. > > Right. But if I look at, e.g., > > COSE_Key = { > 1 => tstr / int, ; kty > ? 2 => bstr, ; kid > ? 3 => tstr / int, ; alg > ? 4 => [+ (tstr / int) ], ; key_ops > ? 5 => bstr, ; Base IV > * label => values > } > > that has 'kty' as tstr / int, and 'int' is defined as either an unsigned integer or a > negative integer, so that doesn't really force it to be in the unsigned space. > > (I'm not terribly sure that that's the right CDDL in which values from the > registry go, though.) > > -Ben From nobody Mon Mar 25 09:38:30 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 5DBFF120416 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:38:29 -0700 (PDT) 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, 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 QyufMg9R4s6r for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam06on0716.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe56::716]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE0F1203FF for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:38:26 -0700 (PDT) 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=Wh9Yl3AuVbz2iFqrYhw8nMNfDX1J4LwR1M9pPnif99Y=; b=PDsuXdSwMc+8KPogZst+U9Vy+T4R5GVx15ryMLQlfQpZ7DXhpeY8ZVnr7pu8TYIZofEa+mhAHaYEAz9wJPnaYybwVEMY30SCv9e/dKAGktKuHhtL40DxQ4yzi+mXWbWP5uoeKegF7B8gmGdyCqYRh5RBaYG81EX3yxDEOUAsYTo= ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=testarcselector01; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=oA07jxPeSacvjK6gClrFuyD5wW33AqhYgWkVm6KQfXvR/CUbLoz7phtIJmQ/B7V98kOiAQzuMrqnfv7YMzuAi/THnx5y3n9dthhCnVIBYGrZ9Gcmt3RU+fyiyr564N5kXgk65UQ+Z93sEBfKVdI3d5h0ska91jcHSu45kiZSU8A= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=testarcselector01; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Wh9Yl3AuVbz2iFqrYhw8nMNfDX1J4LwR1M9pPnif99Y=; b=EgKDIFwrVpAjOrstTb2p+KbiSsF0fynuGyawzzi2vpeuMPsXazOBci9+bWpayG1Ao1sKtXlvwXpM2USnMcqLZisu6SsY6A7EkaYxsg+su1z9snIrIYQ5sx8PmKQe9ZdP8pOaF72ZSjljG/ZpAMD6K/hE92o05nNN0IVSxyGkE8I= ARC-Authentication-Results: =?us-ascii?Q?i=3D1; _test.office365.com_1; =0D=0A=09=09dmarc=3Dnone_action?= =?us-ascii?Q?=3Dnone_header.from=3Dmicrosoft.com;=0D=0A=09=09arc=3Dnone?= Received: from DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.128.37) by DM5PR00MB0266.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (10.169.159.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1781.0; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:38:24 +0000 Received: from DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e079:a1a7:c0c2:84e1]) by DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e079:a1a7:c0c2:84e1%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1783.000; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:38:24 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: John Mattsson , "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 Thread-Index: AQHU4ASGbH3N9oBpiEOomO6+Cjibi6YckLoQ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:38:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [31.133.145.217] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: cb860ced-d51c-4540-5baf-08d6b1404cd4 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR00MB0266; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR00MB0266: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 0987ACA2E2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(51914003)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(22452003)(316002)(7736002)(186003)(74316002)(97736004)(105586002)(2501003)(26005)(6346003)(102836004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(2906002)(8990500004)(25786009)(33656002)(966005)(76176011)(7696005)(72206003)(14454004)(6506007)(53546011)(3846002)(6116002)(81156014)(81166006)(106356001)(10290500003)(10090500001)(478600001)(8936002)(6246003)(229853002)(11346002)(5660300002)(99286004)(8676002)(256004)(86612001)(68736007)(9686003)(6306002)(66066001)(476003)(110136005)(53936002)(305945005)(486006)(6436002)(446003)(52536014)(55016002)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR00MB0266; H:DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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: zYsVsnha8h/DSBm4aVtFPRnU5TwcdgOEpPd57ayk+0PJ2YxyCAfnBEckUPN/z1x7xJ85OpR7XRMl4uCNk8buL1zx+uoL8SYO4Jd04dMylGTXN+3aZRgOTEsuvhlCCgE+2MU837CezCavPOqkgbYMUXvLzdC9LVFcyZLqsfD5QeuKtBKu3U6hhDu+9T4ZCG1GlNdO862PtYLKQUUWDwF04Pb3jY9qOfoiW0Ef/vIZqstqdEJ7utI5Rql+TdWT9WnsJPIbXrxT53/B9hFsze5imw3sgjMfMcvxC9zlE7GDNGcY9IkRuUXf5M/PTuEsJkp0OeFpp0xisDpO/WgxF6pmR3/kVtq9SLRHZwNj3tRVYf8NrZ8fMEJAsn7yOqpenY+XbN7KnWYhxwUD4SUfFrV2ep8T5wGzxc7cjee/eLzjF1I= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cb860ced-d51c-4540-5baf-08d6b1404cd4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Mar 2019 16:38:24.3982 (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: DM5PR00MB0266 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Comments on draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:38:29 -0000 Thanks for the review, John. Replies are inline below, prefixed by "Mike>"= . -----Original Message----- From: COSE On Behalf Of John Mattsson Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 5:39 PM To: cose@ietf.org Subject: [COSE] Comments on draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms-00 Hi, The document motivates why these not recommended and deprecated algorithms = need to be registered. Well-written. - "Additional Algorithm Registrations for COSE and JOSE" Maybe the title could include "WebAuthn", "FIDO2", and/or CTAP Mike> Yes, we could. There's other feedback on the title from Jim. We'll = discuss what the right title is during the working group meeting in Prague = tomorrow. - "These algorithms are registered in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry" The title abstract and intro only mentions algorithms and the algorithms re= gistries. The document also registers a curve in the "IANA "COSE Elliptic C= urves" and ""JSON Web Key Elliptic Curve" registries. Mike> Yes, we can say "and associated curves" or something along those line= s. - "parameterized with a hash function (h)." I think the abbreviation h is never use. Mike> I'm fine with deleting "(h)". - I think the document should do as draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-00 and have a= recommended column in the tables. Mike> Agreed - "P-256K" Do we really need a new name for secp256k1? I would suggest not. Most of th= e document talks about secp256k1 anyway. Giving secp256k1 the alias P-256K = gives the impression that it is a curve standardized by NIST, which it is n= ot. Mike> Others have also suggested simply using the name "secp256k1". I'm fi= ne with that. - "of this document" vs. of [[ this specification ]] Mike> Thanks - I'll make that change. Cheers, John _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose Thanks again for the detailed read! -- Mike From nobody Mon Mar 25 13:49:50 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 BD6B5120075 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNOfL49TejON for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 E677D120059 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2PKnb8L008230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:49:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:49:36 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Jim Schaad Cc: "'RFC Errata System'" , ekr@rtfm.com, ivaylo@ackl.io, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net, marco.tiloca@ri.se, cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <20190325204936.GN77890@kduck.mit.edu> References: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> <02bc01d4e21b$7b5f6230$721e2690$@augustcellars.com> <20190324134808.GL77890@kduck.mit.edu> <02d601d4e24c$1eea2400$5cbe6c00$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02d601d4e24c$1eea2400$5cbe6c00$@augustcellars.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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 Mar 2019 20:49:49 -0000 On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 03:16:02PM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote: > Yeah, that is a cut and paste error. I just make everything be the generic > type and forgot to clean them down. > > Should do that as part of the bis update. Okay. So it sounds like we do intend for this to be uint, so I should take the errata as-is? Thanks, Ben > Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Kaduk > > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 2:48 PM > > To: Jim Schaad > > Cc: 'RFC Errata System' ; ekr@rtfm.com; > > ivaylo@ackl.io; linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; marco.tiloca@ri.se; > > cose@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > In the CBOR encoding it is pretty simple as non-negative integers and > > > negative integers are encoded as separate types. > > > > Right. But if I look at, e.g., > > > > COSE_Key = { > > 1 => tstr / int, ; kty > > ? 2 => bstr, ; kid > > ? 3 => tstr / int, ; alg > > ? 4 => [+ (tstr / int) ], ; key_ops > > ? 5 => bstr, ; Base IV > > * label => values > > } > > > > that has 'kty' as tstr / int, and 'int' is defined as either an unsigned > integer or a > > negative integer, so that doesn't really force it to be in the unsigned > space. > > > > (I'm not terribly sure that that's the right CDDL in which values from the > > registry go, though.) > > > > -Ben > From nobody Mon Mar 25 14:37:18 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 6AC9D1200F6 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:37:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rm3WzpWlG8RB for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C56721200F5 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (31.133.145.82) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:37:01 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' CC: 'RFC Errata System' , , , , , References: <20190323172649.46604B81B5D@rfc-editor.org> <20190323221119.GJ88959@kduck.mit.edu> <02bc01d4e21b$7b5f6230$721e2690$@augustcellars.com> <20190324134808.GL77890@kduck.mit.edu> <02d601d4e24c$1eea2400$5cbe6c00$@augustcellars.com> <20190325204936.GN77890@kduck.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20190325204936.GN77890@kduck.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:36:45 +0100 Message-ID: <03e401d4e352$e2225030$a666f090$@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: AQFSpi/0xSBkWJphI5Zg67wj20UyRgMJo53YAeXJj5UCFRbBywG7gbnIAa4JZ1amzeisMA== Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [31.133.145.82] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) 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 Mar 2019 21:37:17 -0000 Yes, I will then make the appropriate edits and ensure that everything is right, even if it is not exactly what the errata says. > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:50 PM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: 'RFC Errata System' ; ekr@rtfm.com; > ivaylo@ackl.io; linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; marco.tiloca@ri.se; > cose@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 03:16:02PM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote: > > Yeah, that is a cut and paste error. I just make everything be the > > generic type and forgot to clean them down. > > > > Should do that as part of the bis update. > > Okay. So it sounds like we do intend for this to be uint, so I should take the > errata as-is? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > Jim > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Benjamin Kaduk > > > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 2:48 PM > > > To: Jim Schaad > > > Cc: 'RFC Errata System' ; ekr@rtfm.com; > > > ivaylo@ackl.io; linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net; marco.tiloca@ri.se; > > > cose@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8152 (5669) > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > In the CBOR encoding it is pretty simple as non-negative integers > > > > and negative integers are encoded as separate types. > > > > > > Right. But if I look at, e.g., > > > > > > COSE_Key = { > > > 1 => tstr / int, ; kty > > > ? 2 => bstr, ; kid > > > ? 3 => tstr / int, ; alg > > > ? 4 => [+ (tstr / int) ], ; key_ops > > > ? 5 => bstr, ; Base IV > > > * label => values > > > } > > > > > > that has 'kty' as tstr / int, and 'int' is defined as either an > > > unsigned > > integer or a > > > negative integer, so that doesn't really force it to be in the > > > unsigned > > space. > > > > > > (I'm not terribly sure that that's the right CDDL in which values > > > from the registry go, though.) > > > > > > -Ben > > From nobody Mon Mar 25 14:43:17 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 E3CA41200FD; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:43:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pdQs8KAr6Jqf; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 952CD120108; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6BF19B80A44; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:42:55 -0700 (PDT) To: marco.tiloca@ri.se, ietf@augustcellars.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: kaduk@mit.edu, iesg@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20190325214255.6BF19B80A44@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] [Errata Verified] RFC8152 (5669) 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 Mar 2019 21:43:09 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC8152, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5669 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Marco Tiloca Date Reported: 2019-03-23 Verified by: Benjamin Kaduk (IESG) Section: 16.7 Original Text ------------- Value: This is the value used to identify the curve. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer, or a string. Description: This field contains a brief description of the curve. References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for the curve if one exists. Corrected Text -------------- Value: This is the value used to identify the key type. These values MUST be unique. The values are positive integers. Description: This field contains a brief description of the key type. References: This contains a pointer to the public specification for the key type if one exists. Notes ----- This Registry is about Key Types, but the current text refers to curves. The value identifying a key type can be only a positive integer. -------------------------------------- RFC8152 (draft-ietf-cose-msg-24) -------------------------------------- Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : J. Schaad Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Tue Mar 26 06:05:44 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 4E11E120048 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:05:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 dqErBHkqjotx for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 92216120003 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id w10so14270693wrm.4 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outer-planes-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:subject:cc:references:to:from:openpgp:autocrypt:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nh8clVtixMo5PTBDfN/eiHEzxlJF3iXDIQZHN7YVopg=; b=TU12fcy0nX2JJ3TPbYsvFKXGTLs450QVDdmgv1/LImxrexYUFwycyeav3vzMlV0ZHF duOKvcUBM/6QGYZiAwpzDC5JCx/kdvGW0jDP7A+Uautlsuma1CZgZyWPwSQ2dQMqjWNN 8FGb0cmXn/H8fN1SCsHMsxWAA+cowbcfi3uMBZUZGMjpBeXWpLYmsRqC/duORQVRHxPr d2mTknBE6tAMAHZnG761vhDeSY/URvlgbZyl1+Li0XnxpMIl8YdJQg4CM6UI2mftenUT PKgjd5I0KbCi6JJBhqgXn76uzYM5++BHf2RQmL+os/rbDP7J1K1G4q0SZ63WH477OLVV UAmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:cc:references:to:from:openpgp :autocrypt:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nh8clVtixMo5PTBDfN/eiHEzxlJF3iXDIQZHN7YVopg=; b=W6HUNI8tGgRaD9ZYGeb9KrxOZ53nB/7sxm04OOTitw/nEMQWMYF+RylHpoQY/HcT+S 0J8Z5c3061YT5ntHS/eDOo8qbd6QTzJbSFc9A322ZOv+rx0XFqS/3NnqJ+yn6JmcABTV Vi7H54z10GoLHfdNAT9ow4Mjv46lTVsbx07Yos41n0vxxmWQ7CF71CkoKa6iEzrFEjWD 3mnPo3TBKC5mUtr5x9fhbfucMROQuvE6I32PqzrH10q3REoapOqAzaI6iqtH2FVbe9sd wAelhEd3kWNh4MjGSMswv/Wub/2FsotRx8aAmM/nuLb4xp3g9vO/pQ5HYZRV2iGJI9ai AhDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU8+8uUIYiF09YII5/Cx1Vixqzyhm+aOtoPmFlQ52Ud12zCfcKb 1rEo8gSt53h1wEIIqx6VaHvsnA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybzb3lnFKrsEQ3AOxrdr6Y/kjExG9L+ALl+m7IrAgSFT5QHExC4XjYAFiBPr16Pc5j1TaEkg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ba81:: with SMTP id p1mr18537630wrg.192.1553605535949; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-965f.meeting.ietf.org ([2001:67c:1232:144:81e4:e6af:4e8:16c4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9sm14908486wmb.8.2019.03.26.06.05.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Matthew Miller Cc: Mike Jones References: <9098b74d-1dde-a0b8-0b8f-4ee487512c9b@ve7jtb.com> To: cose@ietf.org 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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:05:34 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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 Mar 2019 13:05:43 -0000 The Call for Adoption has concluded, with a good show of support to adopt and no objections noted. Mike, at your convenience please submit `draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algs` (or -algorithms), replacing `draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms`. In the meeting session, it was determined (with consent of the reviewers) that the draft can be adopted before the review comments are addressed. If there are any objections, please raise them now. Thank you all, - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE WG Chairs From nobody Tue Mar 26 07:56:21 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 F1768120306 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:56:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ZJXoX5EAw01p for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr650116.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.65.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83DF512032C for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) 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=VOiJ/pT1Bn1/3xSZekBesaWb4djVK8/xe9oYGmKIPZ0=; b=JiqAV69WPoUM2Mx/wzb6wItnwOJ/wysk4lNksiUhMXjPJUR38sXX5vXhbSbQSnjBGA3reHoQgy46jp7dJsyfIZD5N2MK2vL5k4XvlEBJ5vZahbwD84u4ol/63JLwzkv44rO0gi+ByVUIBvSa7FiB15tDeLYobZe9unLfNCcmpw8= ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=testarcselector01; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=gxCB+VtDTGia1WUQhkN6/SDGfDKcEe0KK/C1frN81+Z99Tf7Bb4TVDoqYGoo/RCeHBZFZdOSmIToOyEwNiWoDZ0lJ+SoVNOSSOqwRLhadOFzO+iXAS/e8BsPMCrK/jyOr/jPsoeUn+83VCVUUZxfKZXQGDsA4l6z8IRg02B4/s0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=testarcselector01; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VOiJ/pT1Bn1/3xSZekBesaWb4djVK8/xe9oYGmKIPZ0=; b=xODDad3N4Dw9lS5loSBfiTAjuCY/Cqpxg7Kq3FIMPfzxus4CM5Hp+DzLUXpSvpWgXWk6b4gLd0aWOeuR4SaSRs3ipnr0oIri/W03NO3pm0N/w/X8rcMRuhfEVPRAK6516ZQsFMBrMWz4uZcGNOighGnRxvbHtgMINnSP1WXWzDw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; test.office365.com 1;dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;arc=none Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.19.158) by BL0PR00MB0420.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.21.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1784.0; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:56:14 +0000 Received: from BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7487:5435:65d8:f2a8]) by BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7487:5435:65d8:f2a8%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1786.000; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:56:14 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: "Matthew A. Miller" , "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms Thread-Index: AQHU2fOO7590ksqkIEK0JIi3EoIvrqYLq4gAgADpkQCAEWAxAIAAHphA Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:56:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9098b74d-1dde-a0b8-0b8f-4ee487512c9b@ve7jtb.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [62.168.35.69] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f1354d94-b2b9-4237-f5f9-08d6b1fb3199 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:BL0PR00MB0420; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR00MB0420: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 09888BC01D x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(7696005)(68736007)(106356001)(5660300002)(25786009)(105586002)(3846002)(33656002)(2906002)(478600001)(10290500003)(229853002)(486006)(6436002)(99286004)(6116002)(72206003)(8990500004)(52536014)(14454004)(66066001)(7736002)(10090500001)(6506007)(53546011)(305945005)(102836004)(316002)(110136005)(6246003)(93886005)(74316002)(22452003)(55016002)(9686003)(14444005)(53936002)(76176011)(446003)(11346002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(476003)(186003)(81156014)(26005)(81166006)(8936002)(256004)(8676002)(4744005)(86362001)(2501003)(86612001)(97736004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR00MB0420; H:BL0PR00MB0292.namprd00.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: aBn01qXcFdClPlYO0jft8QS3BYChu1KKJSnLuOo3ugAXDCZ3iJ5WwvjxjPAP+pR6NYqo/ngbQTK7dSyiX4Z+dTG2Kqsbkth+qfnVfpnD00bSDO6xx9WI2PJQ6uNavKp+t/ao9l8msfnbaiqPkV9qhtw2KggCx+q5pEQzxaAVDtlPp7tZPzCXnfadbAb8l/cM9X/bZuFsNWmWFRlqZ9YwtRsle5NJXk+elycVA2bUIPj9AeSaoS99KSxOJVA2G/hvGEIMjdYfXcB2IvYFBRaXnmCjiBhfrkO2ulzlJzbIvla7ZS59gZXyB9Q9nlhxny4agHCZhxqlwLAIV2Do3Gx4tpUd6zbDBqoGVmdQJVblU/t/rXe5VJxqlSHmLZ/ZN1MI6oVR48T/rTU9fEB7zSj4rvXLmHBp0ZunQPrioB/VXgM= 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: f1354d94-b2b9-4237-f5f9-08d6b1fb3199 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Mar 2019 14:56:14.4486 (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: BL0PR00MB0420 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] Call for Adoption: draft-jones-cose-additional-algorithms 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 Mar 2019 14:56:20 -0000 VGhhbmtzIEl2YXlsbyBhbmQgTWF0dC4gIFRoZSBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtY29z ZS13ZWJhdXRobi1hbGdvcml0aG1zLTAwIGlzIG5vdyBwZW5kaW5nIGFwcHJvdmFsIG9mIHRoZSB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGNoYWlycy4NCg0KCQkJCS0tIE1pa2UNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNz YWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IE1hdHRoZXcgTWlsbGVyIDxsaW51eHdvbGZAb3V0ZXItcGxhbmVzLm5l dD4gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIE1hdHRoZXcgQS4gTWlsbGVyDQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAy NiwgMjAxOSAyOjA2IFBNDQpUbzogY29zZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KQ2M6IE1pa2UgSm9uZXMgPE1pY2hh ZWwuSm9uZXNAbWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbT4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbQ09TRV0gQ2FsbCBmb3IgQWRv cHRpb246IGRyYWZ0LWpvbmVzLWNvc2UtYWRkaXRpb25hbC1hbGdvcml0aG1zDQoNClRoZSBDYWxs IGZvciBBZG9wdGlvbiBoYXMgY29uY2x1ZGVkLCB3aXRoIGEgZ29vZCBzaG93IG9mIHN1cHBvcnQg dG8gYWRvcHQgYW5kIG5vIG9iamVjdGlvbnMgbm90ZWQuDQoNCk1pa2UsIGF0IHlvdXIgY29udmVu aWVuY2UgcGxlYXNlIHN1Ym1pdCBgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1jb3NlLXdlYmF1dGhuLWFsZ3NgIChvciAt YWxnb3JpdGhtcyksIHJlcGxhY2luZyBgZHJhZnQtam9uZXMtY29zZS1hZGRpdGlvbmFsLWFsZ29y aXRobXNgLg0KDQpJbiB0aGUgbWVldGluZyBzZXNzaW9uLCBpdCB3YXMgZGV0ZXJtaW5lZCAod2l0 aCBjb25zZW50IG9mIHRoZQ0KcmV2aWV3ZXJzKSB0aGF0IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBjYW4gYmUgYWRvcHRl ZCBiZWZvcmUgdGhlIHJldmlldyBjb21tZW50cyBhcmUgYWRkcmVzc2VkLiAgSWYgdGhlcmUgYXJl IGFueSBvYmplY3Rpb25zLCBwbGVhc2UgcmFpc2UgdGhlbSBub3cuDQoNCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91IGFs bCwNCg0KLSBJdmF5bG8gYW5kIE1hdHRoZXcNCkNPU0UgV0cgQ2hhaXJzDQo= From nobody Wed Mar 27 01:41:37 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 E76D512027C; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 01:41:35 -0700 (PDT) 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: 6.94.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cose@ietf.org Message-ID: <155367609585.10465.1679178277493434102@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 01:41:35 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-00.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:41:36 -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 : COSE and JOSE Registrations for WebAuthn Algorithms Author : Michael B. Jones Filename : draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2019-03-26 Abstract: The W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) specification and the FIDO2 Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP) specification use COSE algorithm identifiers. This specification registers algorithms in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry that are used by WebAuthn and CTAP implementations that are not already registered. Also, they are registered in the IANA "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry, when not already registered there. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-00 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 Wed Mar 27 06:16:52 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 3E6FD1202BE for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LmMUIbfNXTos for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (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 3846F120285 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id o25so16085731wmf.5 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:16:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :to; bh=z5PXZBdHGY0bJUS37Fu723RhovPGxQzJw/0ViXQGq9o=; b=RBBhV1qsEphlduaTFpvo+ffkGOKrNaCAuqYh63kDydNWxdyYDcUJuNXEC5bjOYAEnO fETva6Gg23QJ+4fO2CGy7zwXQsBVNo0oVxOcgfP/WZEWJ0YJVDNIycDfzz2nEuhc8iFv 2hm0o23kdQJto8q6V+JXQJU3J0a8C2pcAGMFlOZO1LYYBl134wYxAWb+3LvxgCVzbpu1 0k0YZ9pQHWMdjO0R+QpbRPiUISeLWOFf/HHF38pIR+v3wKi8WkBbzoVHDhsS2jy8S79S V0FAH9pwVVRBGH2VVQ5wNpQ7xh3KmBUFiB8tUis39cCgUbdAygRn6+nl8uccWyUzQvju swqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:to; bh=z5PXZBdHGY0bJUS37Fu723RhovPGxQzJw/0ViXQGq9o=; b=lGtw5gc2KTQRdW3kFF+SqdWOdnYOWHUDEL3UGJxMCcg9Vn6IT4B3qdhfs8XQz8eJ0z gULQW1Pww+rk+oXyQsCHSGiyAPyRU36/IcOwI5r/ud+Em0u/xyQu4+t1wpQ5PSAx/jmm vyme+F8UkV9UMrWzq3Qvw+jaVq6LlWIw2Js6MJj4mx71TXSLifuz4I8Y+yFCoJpL6BIJ Fwqbd1SacoJYZCt4P2HvygdnWinNuZWRhWPepJPVECTHVy66ySWDCPFqTYR8yvZwNYV4 BWiks9c2SFaKWv8Dm2+5mrNHE88gbzrpRwhwAEQhsnOcSYM8ooaR+Jmyy89/rt7ylyeC E5CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/8tm8oWFvKa4PG5t0Bc4J9PmNnJwR2RKHPp/mhfBLCVWZne7q QJXieJHwJQtNnM8ueoI3UN1gvp8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzpZYziIwicvMw1G1agV2mxhz8lWFjRRPneskI6FpkgkaYS2YoLYVR1oZJDTv9D5XxGynPvng== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f014:: with SMTP id a20mr18008817wmb.122.1553692606464; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.96.117.46] (ip-37-188-133-129.eurotel.cz. [37.188.133.129]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a9sm23045775wmb.30.2019.03.27.06.16.45 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:16:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Filip Skokan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9D57B497-B15D-499E-B91C-209804258CDA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <64A280DE-04BF-4443-8ED5-EFF25E38E4C2@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:16:44 +0100 To: cose@ietf.org X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57) Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] "P-256K" in draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms 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 Mar 2019 13:16:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail-9D57B497-B15D-499E-B91C-209804258CDA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Once more to the correct mailing list... this draft has caught my attention since it touches JOSE as well, specifical= ly it proposes registration for the uses of secp256k1 "bitcoin" curve. I lea= rned from Mike Jones that there's a discussion around naming the key's curve= and the JWA algorithm. =20 > - "P-256K" > Do we really need a new name for secp256k1? I would suggest not. Most of t= he document talks about secp256k1 anyway. Giving secp256k1 the alias P-256K g= ives the impression that it is a curve standardized by NIST, which it is not= . Mike> Others have also suggested simply using the name "secp256k1". I'm fi= ne with that. I'd like to advocate for sticking with the proposed (in current draft) "P-25= 6K" for EC key's crv, and "ES256K" for the JWA alg. These values are already= quite common in existing implementations, quite a few hits for this. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.azure.keyvault.eck= ey.p256k?view=3Dazure-dotnet [2] https://connect2id.com/products/nimbus-jose-jwt/examples/jwt-with-es256k= -signature [3] https://static.javadoc.io/com.nimbusds/nimbus-jose-jwt/5.10/com/nimbusds= /jose/jwk/ECKey.html [4] https://github.com/panva/jose/blob/master/lib/jwk/key/ec.js#L22-L23 [5] https://github.com/relocately/ec-key As mentioned in the IETF 104 meeting on Tuesday the other encountered naming= of this is "K-256" but there's considerably less hits searching for impleme= ntations using that one. I understand the COSE group does not (probably) have existing implementation= s of secp256k1 and that's why the notion of just naming it secp256k1 resonat= es, but maybe consider only doing so for COSE. JOSE could use less fragmenta= tion amongst its implementations and therefore sticking to the most common n= aming already in the wild would be welcome. The same applies to the presented question about Compressed vs. Non-compress= ed Points for secp256k1, i'd advocate that at least for JOSE the used points= remain in-line with what's already used in with the existing keys and algor= ithms. Best, Filip Skokan= --Apple-Mail-9D57B497-B15D-499E-B91C-209804258CDA Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

Once more to the correct mailing list...

t= his draft has caught my attention since it touches JOSE as well, specificall= y it proposes registration for the uses of secp256k1 "bitcoin" curve. I= learned from Mike Jones that there's a discussion around naming the key's c= urve and the JWA algorithm.
 
- "P-256K"
Do we really need a new name for secp25= 6k1? I would suggest not. Most of the document talks about secp256k1 anyway.= Giving secp256k1 the alias P-256K gives the impression that it is a curve s= tandardized by NIST, which it is not. Mike> Others have also suggested simply using the name "secp256k1". I'm f= ine with that.

I'd like to advocate for stic= king with the proposed (in current draft) "P-256K" for EC key's crv, a= nd "ES256K" for the JWA alg. These values are already quite common in= existing implementations, quite a few hits for this.

As mentioned i= n the IETF 104 meeting on Tuesday the other encountered naming of this is "K= -256" but there's considerably less hits searching for implementations using= that one.

I understand the COSE group does not (pr= obably) have existing implementations of secp256k1 and that's why the n= otion of just naming it secp256k1 resonates, but maybe consider only do= ing so for COSE. JOSE could use less fragmentation amongst its implementatio= ns and therefore sticking to the most common naming already in the wild woul= d be welcome.

The same applies to the presented que= stion about Compressed vs. Non-compressed Points for secp25= 6k1, i'd advocate that at least for JOSE the used points remain in-line with= what's already used in with the existing keys and algorithms.

Best,
= Filip Skokan
= --Apple-Mail-9D57B497-B15D-499E-B91C-209804258CDA-- From nobody Wed Mar 27 06:31:00 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 D9781120005 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:30:56 -0700 (PDT) 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (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 Ezz_zAW6MGTR for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr640104.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.64.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB38D12001E for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:30:53 -0700 (PDT) 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=WKe2urJxdl7OtzwaAA6cnCNB6vbdKiTPGHpGnOEiNAY=; b=HT0TDped4d7FiL3njXeLmUkdyLJbPIox/5rqRr7OJZT4CJGVblp4CPLN+w+QXzlo3ovALsHjGuGkkOkIH8dHHp/oaLGBuld+JBE4/F6uoMvjIJDM1KcHTW7HgvRNadpYTRPl8Q5mva54sy4TmhC8uo3B1by7quFAliW/eHHk4S0= ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=testarcselector01; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=YroyUfylbpPQTsVWDU5XwkJ22hprHlI4JURvYCCZURpvl87lugzUsr0G8eZJ+Hqs6BUu2NawkaPePZ5lsFcBYwpyHnGW2mgZOfP4VbB6wW/UAS4Hkg0pF2xN/vwgtLbvSo5dCdtZNMPJuBfnP1QqHeED/XuOoB+eDYQG1ZBhPbE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=testarcselector01; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=WKe2urJxdl7OtzwaAA6cnCNB6vbdKiTPGHpGnOEiNAY=; b=tAfp/Spi+CJWCpp7h3MrfTd1AR6Cwji7MpeBptD3mDH2COEdBFpaDjgNxrt5tNW/N2Tdsv9KDZYWlWImuxWcag6lHi3zsM/vTQIJogUv0NMtVuIUwRO94JNvXTZF45x/oNbY32kDrg8vGQXvOQC1czAWkvYCnuCAIheJpnC+blc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; test.office365.com 1;dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;arc=none Received: from DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.128.37) by DM5PR00MB0358.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.128.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1788.0; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 13:30:51 +0000 Received: from DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::651a:e26a:5e40:33d5]) by DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::651a:e26a:5e40:33d5%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1788.000; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 13:30:51 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: "cose@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Working group adoption of "COSE and JOSE Registrations for WebAuthn Algorithms" Thread-Index: AdTknt6PwJzNXer7Ql2IHP9d22FonQ== Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 13:30:51 +0000 Message-ID: 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_ActionId=b19108c4-4ae9-40ed-ae79-0000233a1a30; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Name=Internal; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SetDate=2019-03-27T10:22:59+0100; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47; x-originating-ip: [62.168.35.67] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4e8363e5-7c6c-4eca-b9f1-08d6b2b86e51 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:DM5PR00MB0358; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR00MB0358: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 10 authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 0989A7979C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(209900001)(189003)(199004)(9686003)(97736004)(66066001)(52536014)(6306002)(55016002)(54896002)(22452003)(71200400001)(2501003)(8990500004)(33656002)(5640700003)(71190400001)(14454004)(68736007)(74316002)(10090500001)(3846002)(6116002)(256004)(14444005)(790700001)(7736002)(606006)(2906002)(21615005)(236005)(2351001)(6436002)(106356001)(105586002)(86612001)(81156014)(186003)(81166006)(8936002)(478600001)(6916009)(5660300002)(8676002)(53376002)(25786009)(102836004)(6506007)(26005)(1730700003)(72206003)(99286004)(53936002)(316002)(7696005)(476003)(86362001)(966005)(486006)(10290500003)(6606295002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR00MB0358; H:DM5PR00MB0296.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) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: y587ChbDMV1O0XHl8R9VV/UfqsyJMjDuSiHtwND35rznzGIS9YDIHXpWmTQVp9fie6FhllXwtcGFHEKpM5FoXrnTdHolEq5oNI7bGEbH6mCA5+3sOnfY3cbCIEfk87hpxfc8pNyoyg9TtvtkwUaGrUnHFNln0H/dNuUCV1okQhSJCbSVZfueXpRL2r/XmJ+IFnIJ60/OtyeZDbspDIhDx1SY7qrWRRS9uQlxuhCZ/GXz/kEmbMr65KlHfY76dpdjSTdnf4sc/xCfWe3QdARZTCx0QpY5UL5qo0JDhSl6STBZ0kSD0vted4UhIm8bXGyiS9nGge63KaUmQBeGtQyfkSWkjmZtV5dtrjPXsupWW+SLnuxq7lnbSa2j0ApL+CGBnWEDX7L3mbp/S70gABdwXmRyompj7U1H7JMbfLMJvVA= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR00MB0296F239FB42A7D9FBF5E024F5580DM5PR00MB0296namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4e8363e5-7c6c-4eca-b9f1-08d6b2b86e51 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Mar 2019 13:30:51.3050 (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: DM5PR00MB0358 Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] Working group adoption of "COSE and JOSE Registrations for WebAuthn Algorithms" 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 Mar 2019 13:30:57 -0000 --_000_DM5PR00MB0296F239FB42A7D9FBF5E024F5580DM5PR00MB0296namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm pleased to report that the IETF COSE Working Group has adopted the specification "COSE and JOSE Regis= trations for WebAuthn Algorithms". An abstract of what it does is: This specification defines how to use several algorithms with COSE [RFC8152= ] that are used by implementations of = the W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) [WebAuthn] and FIDO2 Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP= ) [CTAP] specifications. These algor= ithms are to be registered in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry [IANA.COS= E.Algorithms] and also in= the IANA "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOS= E.Algorithms], when not a= lready registered there. The algorithms registered are RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with four different hash fu= nctions and signing with the secp256k1 curve. Note that there was consensu= s in the working group meeting not to work on registrations for the Ellipti= c Curve Direct Anonymous Attestation (ECDAA) algorithms "ED256" and "ED512"= , both because of issues that have been raised with them and because they a= re not in widespread use. The -01 version will address the review comments received on the mailing li= st from Jim Schaad and John Mattsson. The specification is available at: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-00 An HTML-formatted version is also available at: * http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-00.h= tml -- Mike P.S. This notice was also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=3D1964 and = as @selfissued. --_000_DM5PR00MB0296F239FB42A7D9FBF5E024F5580DM5PR00MB0296namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’m pleased to report that the IETF COSE Working Group has adopted the specification "COSE and JO= SE Registrations for WebAuthn Algorithms".  An abstract of what i= t does is:

This specification defines how to use several algorithm= s with COSE [RFC8152] that are used by implementations of the W3C Web Authe= ntication (WebAuthn) [WebAuthn] and FIDO2 Client to Authenticator Pr= otocol (CTAP) [CTAP] specifications. These algorithms are to be registered in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" re= gistry = [IANA.COSE.Algorithms] and also in the IANA "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms&qu= ot; registry [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms], when not already registered there= .

 

The algorithms registered are RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with four different hash functions and signing with the s= ecp256k1 curve.  Note that there was consensus in the working group me= eting not to work on registrations for the Elliptic Curve Direct Anonymous = Attestation (ECDAA) algorithms “ED256” and “ED512”, both because of issues that have been raised with them and because they are not in widespread use.

 

The -01 version will= address the review comments received on the mailing list from Jim Schaad a= nd John Mattsson.

 

The specification is available at:

 

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:=

 

        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           -- Mike

 

P.S.  This notice was also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=3D1964 and as @selfissued.

--_000_DM5PR00MB0296F239FB42A7D9FBF5E024F5580DM5PR00MB0296namp_-- From nobody Fri Mar 29 05:01:25 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 3C55E12026F for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Hc9a4qw2Jb07 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 7B5E3120251 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id k17so2263382wrx.10 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:01:20 -0700 (PDT) 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=i+ptnx9EShepxprbAIDm4ao0N1A9R7dDkZ98UhVPXYY=; b=QzB3OYNXWUGvK/DHuCSVPVC1wOPH3y3ZHZr3L2TbnoQQ0QOT0q55mz6cMaT2QXZeFL dqGumeyxuh3+wImPeTKPemRgpDHxAhnwFBIz3W0VkOitunREu4crrp2lTc9zt3fuajfC feBNQ+gFhHsa7cr8p1bskbdW+Q2agGz7OldiEjNVPHpd7hHCDPimL+7lwsQ0aIRLv+ck 6MhWfem/ucZxA+peQblu87Z1r4//yWB2FXi99cRZHj9azs9t17Agn6/6rWfL7TBG/90r BB2m8ITrIBWFvg8myr9skiZq9cE/U6DsiuQmiWKU8bnEXlBHw8XOQqHnKkBVv19LIAP4 r2mw== 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=i+ptnx9EShepxprbAIDm4ao0N1A9R7dDkZ98UhVPXYY=; b=NreslqC+xa9M8AbB/FHPtKMA8JOoHaTebqHlUPOx6WD+nC8Je/IUS12dU5YdM6iGLK uG56CGNiOD1ClKuL8qG1P3DtTBcmvRlbDZqrJvVHYlhvvjOzSXST4lliZYppR9dCT8xg N0quh16iGSEdbxIApCKsfZjsO+x2UqNAhMFKwOHkve2qYpb2TejmXlczVp5JYun9jOs5 tddNS8OjeATjGGii/1eDvD0ty5AXLuqCNGviWWW+pNqZm8bF3oe3/wncZDSIeJyYh42L tO56swcUdQhUriNyKzaAWmdRrYpk9XiVupdZwhQVlbpKB7oi4UdQKE4/jsax3tz1h2W2 4b8g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWpb5kZyk1U7lTI/arq7bz07/j07R4cdMGun22+gYk4OAhpzh6J qn0GKHSsUTFWIjUaYtee4/b7T2jIlykvxEX7fdBzupGPZBDMQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzgFxLNKZBw7Uq4s0hJ9+Js2xzLnhX9qzfVX7LAtFtjpNfQbA6kUvvPPsUl4OTe8lmN9AGEpX3q4mZ2i3oDI9U= X-Received: by 2002:adf:dcca:: with SMTP id x10mr30775158wrm.57.1553860878272; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ivaylo petrov Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:00:51 +0100 Message-ID: To: cose Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ae1af705853a6d7f" Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] IETF 104 Meeting minutes available online 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, 29 Mar 2019 12:01:24 -0000 --000000000000ae1af705853a6d7f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, The minutes from Tuesday's meeting are on the Datatracker [1]. Please read them and send to us or to the list any corrections that you might have. Best regards, - Matthew and Ivaylo COSE Chairs [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-cose/ --000000000000ae1af705853a6d7f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

The minut= es from Tuesday's meeting are on the Datatracker [1]. Please read them = and send to us or to the list any corrections that you might have.

Best regards,
-=C2=A0Matthew and=C2=A0Ivaylo
COS= E Chairs

<= font color=3D"#0b5394" face=3D"verdana, sans-serif">[1]:=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.= org/doc/minutes-104-cose/
--000000000000ae1af705853a6d7f-- From nobody Fri Mar 29 05:06:23 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 1831B12028A for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 4d9Y9jv92qyW for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 9AEFD12026F for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id s15so2269807wra.12 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:06:18 -0700 (PDT) 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=d30EwnXCpl8G8zhJx0GDhxGlBnwnBUBi3HvnHXcvPTw=; b=JXGLqBp0pEuF/dKIKQVGxkCuoFcM2hO9m+yebLVRR3sGan0z3gmUf6oV8AiSxUvjSI X//Fhna/Uyvpr6K6zDOv8aA9qsfrITwlXhr5WVE5OmwhS62dgwyr/ZWmDbRDbFvPocIl g8Ph9BN0/IU4RHwYq/UyfZM/rrEDWCyf5pz/IqfoIfHTHusbzrKOo8aSoo0oIeSBLsSD XDr0qmmVpi0tTaNpVnXtr95+effCJ7/k/4+Gd/hZ8kYNWjbHYIO4cMwhHlqtJqgiFkMX mH8Pje/eovMEIArHWhhwA00+CmAPJ6VaWInahqZLfG5wRdswjq5chehw+LxShgRUNiid WbCw== 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=d30EwnXCpl8G8zhJx0GDhxGlBnwnBUBi3HvnHXcvPTw=; b=kR8Uhxx73yezs+nx6W/GxdFjP+e56hEKc+h3csyuusvY4mr1EyQQpHlQr3inA8KKbF N1fPRhiec8r21pqu47DyDKgLt2azXo4BEtxploc4y6gB1WX1iJpPHd0l5aYIIDII8BOu ieda1it3KLsz4INSXJkxq+Lk0cNFnrdLDsIjpQU281emMAe3mm6nE+750QNlFI70Si3O gBN7p3Lzmm5CE6bmSecNg6owT0xWR0illYAsUyJTkkA9b4NN9tKs78d81mkp5/9i0fNx 21t170kryTNzvusfjW6uXuTSlJ9KYmG+zdOt/hgjRjpDYtuOzxTmiAJzdgAJgapVIhmh GT/A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRSIN3Xd8Vm4Jkr1uL3dx4ran8jGRXItOmLlMh8mlDhRvJofSD cvn9ZqaqddrDvtOjl4sKx4Ooc3DPwEFt5y6m X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7xttQUdhnuKGFImrTWMFKpJwXn7e14BcyfrEPPVWtkuv2j+spkpctKgxg9ZH58El/uQ1MrA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:dcce:: with SMTP id x14mr20339945wrm.315.1553861176681; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-98b5.meeting.ietf.org ([2001:67c:1232:144:1593:a14e:7277:977b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w21sm2110140wmc.4.2019.03.29.05.06.15 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:06:15 -0700 (PDT) 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: <46c513b8-f5c0-4230-b3bd-7fd9152d4c4c@outer-planes.net> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:06:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [COSE] (Last) Call for Consensus - CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1 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, 29 Mar 2019 12:06:22 -0000 This is another call for consensus, ending April 5. The issue is whether to change the counter signature context string from "CounterSignature0" to "CounterSignature1". The changed value would be more consistent with the structure and text of the document, however this is a breaking change that could cause interoperability failures with implementations that have not updated. This issue has previously been asked on this list, as well as in the meeting session in Prague. In the meeting session, a number of people raised objections because this is a breaking change. Please respond by April 5, either saying you support the change (and possibly why), or saying you do not support the change (and why). Thank you, - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE WG Chairs From nobody Fri Mar 29 05:25:48 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 7D714120289 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT) 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (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 2P_8iUCzG2d0 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM06-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr650107.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.65.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A815312024B for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=testarcselector01; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=C4CGNzt1SddbEvk3VlqYQ/Xu57Kc1+uAQVwrbX/OQeZ56V98tjv5wdfyG96gPh/wUY/CEvYtlU8y2Mn2eCqjakTmNFyqq92X+Rpl8HTA6cw8nEmJjwia8xQzHKbpRzhLe3nd6OlmEyElU3DXORSRXaeEsPyBMWsiqlwbRGqiC5o= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=testarcselector01; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=PbB69XdxOyrb+wLYtCHukXV3999Mm7+b2W6l7l01xTA=; b=gmHR8vMQlMPiWuoFeZw7oCg9bXAIrl0NWDNG10GUf1+Mem+c9Yx6qxLeOVl53VfmYuDHWf5Iwh2bWTSEe54BUf5dw9WNu6/o/R8JPrjFeG1QsIUdFxMnnktTi3TYDV/Rst4V0cvmMc0j+WUuQXq3aoUFPIaaQq+zWScNEpUjfOY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; test.office365.com 1;dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;arc=none 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=PbB69XdxOyrb+wLYtCHukXV3999Mm7+b2W6l7l01xTA=; b=HLCxuRd3WXdDy9qOCB4vy/CXZgog7xRH/iKxkdePaM/mxSmI0ggKgtxjNtYe+T3J7ycuZLFlfTan6p374ogTLJt0iDhIW85BCtIhAosa7Y47sFa8x1jabjTFSLXd5EGZzryDtge9dQk4Js13fpZP9GHiNBwnl3GmU8nB9gIeLtk= Received: from DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.128.37) by DM5PR00MB0422.namprd00.prod.outlook.com (52.132.129.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1794.0; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:25:40 +0000 Received: from DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::651a:e26a:5e40:33d5]) by DM5PR00MB0296.namprd00.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::651a:e26a:5e40:33d5%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1794.000; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:25:40 +0000 From: Mike Jones To: "Matthew A. Miller" , cose Thread-Topic: [COSE] (Last) Call for Consensus - CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1 Thread-Index: AQHU5ifXgl6Bxaf/mUqKfRXLeamE6qYiiDZm Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:25:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <46c513b8-f5c0-4230-b3bd-7fd9152d4c4c@outer-planes.net> In-Reply-To: <46c513b8-f5c0-4230-b3bd-7fd9152d4c4c@outer-planes.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:67c:1232:144:6419:e96a:c3d0:2e55] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 44e7b84a-2247-4bf8-25f1-08d6b441a840 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600137)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR00MB0422; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR00MB0422: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1 authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 0991CAB7B3 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(10090500001)(229853002)(102836004)(8990500004)(106356001)(186003)(105586002)(6436002)(72206003)(606006)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(7736002)(2906002)(7696005)(6116002)(14454004)(966005)(478600001)(10290500003)(52536014)(97736004)(68736007)(33656002)(8936002)(5660300002)(46003)(446003)(6246003)(25786009)(99286004)(6506007)(11346002)(53936002)(55016002)(74316002)(236005)(9686003)(476003)(486006)(6306002)(54896002)(76176011)(86612001)(22452003)(53546011)(86362001)(71190400001)(110136005)(71200400001)(316002)(256004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR00MB0422; H:DM5PR00MB0296.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) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: KIu0FRGRoh/qeGsnXA5kD7/gNsT3nKkY5CIQb5/rbD3IO+pDQOM6UcFgT/EzHkO0qhdVccSWadAAlnJ9OOeTNHHJugv/JhTo34SwQ7u98gTpZuR0cFUSpkD0QhmwqlMj3QiM9IzyKC9vBLQE5lAkGQTttWAeKZ5olHBmaLe7XLH0PQibR66giA2+mfWFbKlqx0WxkHo2O0+1rnP0OPPCHnxcjjPx5643ofjeBub+RNJVbfP7FZAKX0+7BFHPsVnhWoZE7d3bZCJyllCLZSXnPP6Ll6OIDLJdsYh3Urrr0nmWmU0mzeFvzPJuU8A8WNymRG8yTEMj2tqVNrURkWmCr9c+kIecx+TvllOb9ywTCcqS+f+H6fWz88vHl9ZUfQLyxuL06RSgT047z8EiUWZw1RMDLJnSR0GAtxfkfFE5xnI= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR00MB02965CEBEC643029AF5E75F1F55A0DM5PR00MB0296namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 44e7b84a-2247-4bf8-25f1-08d6b441a840 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Mar 2019 12:25:40.7194 (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: DM5PR00MB0422 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [COSE] (Last) Call for Consensus - CounterSignature0 vs CounterSignature1 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, 29 Mar 2019 12:25:47 -0000 --_000_DM5PR00MB02965CEBEC643029AF5E75F1F55A0DM5PR00MB0296namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please make the change. Now is our opportunity to correct obvious editorial= inconsistencies like this. -- Mike ________________________________ From: COSE on behalf of Matthew A. Miller Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:06:15 PM To: cose Subject: [COSE] (Last) Call for Consensus - CounterSignature0 vs CounterSig= nature1 This is another call for consensus, ending April 5. The issue is whether to change the counter signature context string from "CounterSignature0" to "CounterSignature1". The changed value would be more consistent with the structure and text of the document, however this is a breaking change that could cause interoperability failures with implementations that have not updated. This issue has previously been asked on this list, as well as in the meeting session in Prague. In the meeting session, a number of people raised objections because this is a breaking change. Please respond by April 5, either saying you support the change (and possibly why), or saying you do not support the change (and why). Thank you, - Ivaylo and Matthew COSE WG Chairs _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list COSE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose --_000_DM5PR00MB02965CEBEC643029AF5E75F1F55A0DM5PR00MB0296namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please make the change. Now is our opportunity to correct obvious editorial= inconsistencies like this.

-- Mike
From: COSE <cose-bounc= es@ietf.org> on behalf of Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer= -planes.net>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:06:15 PM
To: cose
Subject: [COSE] (Last) Call for Consensus - CounterSignature0 vs Cou= nterSignature1
 
This is another call for consensus, ending April 5= .

The issue is whether to change the counter signature context string from "CounterSignature0" to "CounterSignature1".

The changed value would be more consistent with the structure and text
of the document, however this is a breaking change that could cause
interoperability failures with implementations that have not updated.

This issue has previously been asked on this list, as well as in the
meeting session in Prague.  In the meeting session, a number of people=
raised objections because this is a breaking change.

Please respond by April 5, either saying you support the change (and
possibly why), or saying you do not support the change (and why).


Thank you,

- Ivaylo and Matthew
COSE WG Chairs

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/cose
 --_000_DM5PR00MB02965CEBEC643029AF5E75F1F55A0DM5PR00MB0296namp_--