Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 17 June 2021 11:33 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77AC3A1BD5 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 YFcylCF0k1Ja for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977F93A125B for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G5KgM4SP4z2xH1; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:33:19 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <146F670A-48EA-4A90-B77C-4CCC535F1DB1@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:33:19 +0200
Cc: "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 645622399.222345-b68f99616412b1606c3d72aac97c4766
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6195BD3A-A031-47BD-866E-AF3D4D423A0B@tzi.org>
References: <8713C3AB-71C0-4EC0-8977-15F80EC11309@arm.com> <212CE7EA-73BC-47BF-B192-D2D523F4A376@tzi.org> <33C84949-0F9C-432C-9C94-DE2C9EE17976@arm.com> <3F367A6D-5CAD-474F-AFEE-DF1AC9A34135@tzi.org> <146F670A-48EA-4A90-B77C-4CCC535F1DB1@arm.com>
To: Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/LeabfX0aNrqJ4fSblD_V-LusN5w>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:33:27 -0000
> On 2021-06-17, at 13:17, Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote: > >> How would the hash reference specify the algorithm? >> (I think CFRG would tell us that collision resistance between algorithms isn’t a well-defined property.) > > We could possibly reuse SUIT digest definitions for this: > suit-digest = [algorithm-id : uint, digest: bstr] > > If we use a second tag for the reference table setup, this is unambiguous. > > Alternatively, cbor-wg or cose-wg could define tags for common digest algorithms. I thought COSE did: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs/ (in RFC editor queue; registrations already done) did this: | Name | Value | Recommended | |-------------|-------|-------------| | SHA-1 | -14 | Filter Only | | SHA-256/64 | -15 | Filter Only | | SHA-256 | -16 | Yes | | SHA-384 | -43 | Yes | | SHA-512 | -44 | Yes | | SHA-512/256 | -17 | Yes | | SHAKE128 | -18 | Yes | | SHAKE256 | -45 | Yes | Grüße, Carsten
- [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Brendan Moran
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Brendan Moran
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Brendan Moran
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Brendan Moran
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Christian Amsüss
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Christian Amsüss
- Re: [Cbor] Packed CBOR review Christian Amsüss