Re: [core] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-object-security-08

Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com> Fri, 23 February 2018 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <goran.selander@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE05012025C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:38:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 scdyKjOHMUlV for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (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 9D025124D6C for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:38:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1519396711; 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=pyFzcSVY52fc2tmP3PCnB563297bFAKkWIRSK6E1Qdc=; b=FATykzKjHerlQfn8+vhGkZplQq9bMg4zDZSO8VJoyPiJYvDyNme6mvRFJAu4Qh6O wsbDEbbeJ5lGlqTSRoc2PwSB1RrRFY8BXf+CxZASsfPzyoq54yP4poc4Sbx0RyFP WvlsWDYEb0/ofpaJ0D1W6D/pPc98mu591Fv6iNYgvjE=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-083ff70000002d5f-9f-5a902766ded0
Received: from ESESSHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.39]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E3.7D.11615.667209A5; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:38:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB107.ericsson.se ([169.254.7.129]) by ESESSHC007.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:38:30 +0100
From: Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com>
To: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-core-object-security.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-object-security.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-object-security-08
Thread-Index: AQHTq5B10khO9+K1o0aQQatbu7YyQ6Oxyk4AgAAq4wCAABlwgP//78QAgAASbAA=
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:38:29 +0000
Message-ID: <D6B5E4F6.A01C4%goran.selander@ericsson.com>
References: <151927150372.21177.1992679615718735268@ietfa.amsl.com> <D6B5A4CD.A00B9%goran.selander@ericsson.com> <f66dac5d-2bb8-dd17-645c-4ba53399d9cc@joelhalpern.com> <D6B5E2B8.A01B3%goran.selander@ericsson.com> <f913c2e0-2f1a-c1dc-5182-edde22b16956@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <f913c2e0-2f1a-c1dc-5182-edde22b16956@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.3.170325
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8FF162214F945A43B030157BD3F8975D@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7um66+oQog41f2Cz2vV3PbPGtZx6r xdVXn1ksnm2cz2KxbRFQ7OOpN0wObB5Llvxk8jg35TtjAFMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8azxsls BZc0Km4vfc/awHhGvYuRk0NCwETiysLD7F2MXBxCAocZJdp//WWGcJYwSvzdepYJpIpNwEXi QcMjJpCEiEAbo8SXZRvYQBxmgeWMEicav4NVCQt4SZzZc4sVxBYR8JbYuvY6I4TtJ/H6wlEw m0VAVeL+xbVgNq+AhcSL5v8sEOsmM0m07bgMluAUcJaY+2MhM4jNKCAm8f3UGrAFzALiEree zGeCOFxAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/wBaLCuhJ7O1pZ4OIK0rsPNsOVMMB1KspsX6XPsQYa4nD66Yx QtiKElO6H7JD3CMocXLmE5YJjOKzkGybhdA9C0n3LCTds5B0L2BkXcUoWpxanJSbbmSsl1qU mVxcnJ+nl5dasokRGJsHt/xW3cF4+Y3jIUYBDkYlHl5HoQlRQqyJZcWVuYcYJTiYlUR4y573 RwnxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLnnSPcHiUkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpgbKld0SIt zvh+paj61btVhnu5eBn+rOn50hJQMFPu2Z8i9ZPszZyrTmlbyYUl2gVNfzpj40rzV7kRpYdX NTSwHxWxPOgS9G/Cb11lFt21hQmqs3fI3dr+rWDShe2W89R2/lrlHfe3+OU+af6TzfHH9u+r SrlUyLNSi+cj166QnuJT7wu1p/6yVGIpzkg01GIuKk4EAOb43jTJAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/IQ86kmq9xkOLd4wWRLRYn07_3Mo>
Subject: Re: [core] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-object-security-08
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:38:36 -0000

How about this (see the last and third to last edit):
https://github.com/core-wg/oscoap/commit/8f277d83

where the reference is made to COSE instead of AEAD?

Best
Göran


On 2018-02-23 15:32, "Joel Halpern Direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
wrote:

>I guess it is up to you.  Personally, I like the idea of the verify
>description including some reference to how one actually does verify.
>I will leave it to the authors and WG to decide what degree of clarity
>is called for here.
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>On 2/23/18 9:30 AM, Göran Selander wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> 
>> Thanks for quick feedback, inline.
>> 
>> On 2018-02-23 14:59, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In terms of my concerns, if Step 7 said "Verify and Decrypt the COSE
>>> object using the Recipient Key as per RFC 5116 Section 2.2" that would
>>> fill in the confusion for this reader.
>> 
>> Since the AEAD is used throughout the draft, in particular in other
>>parts
>> of this section I’m thinking that maybe we should add RFC 5116 to the
>>list
>> of specifications following "Readers are expected to be familiar with”
>>in
>> Section 1.1. Would that address your comment?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Göran
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 2/23/18 5:26 AM, Göran Selander wrote:
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your review. Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-22 04:51, "Joel Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>>>>
>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>>>>> like any other last call comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-core-object-security-08
>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>> Review Date: 2018-02-21
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-02
>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed
>>>>>Standard
>>>>> RFC
>>>>>
>>>>> Major issues: N/A
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>      In section 8.2 on verifying the request, step 5 says to
>>>>>"compose"
>>>>> the
>>>>>      Additional Authentication Data.  I would have expected it to be
>>>>> "verify"
>>>>>      the Additional Authentication Data.  I could imagine that the
>>>>> verification
>>>>>      consists of composing what it should be, and then comparing with
>>>>> what
>>>>> is
>>>>>      received.  But I do not see the comparison step.  is it
>>>>>implicit in
>>>>> some
>>>>>      other step?  This occurs again in 8.4, so I presume I am simply
>>>>> missing
>>>>>      something.  This may suggest some clarification could be useful.
>>>>
>>>> The AAD is indeed “composed" both on encrypting and decrypting side
>>>>from
>>>> data which needs to be known to the endpoint at the time when the AEAD
>>>> operation is performed. The authenticated decryption process is
>>>> described
>>>> in:
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5116#section-2.2
>>>>
>>>> So the verification consists of feeding the input, including the AAD,
>>>>to
>>>> the authenticated decryption which calculates the plain text or FAIL,
>>>> and
>>>> a failure may be - but is not necessarily - caused by wrong AAD.
>>>>
>>>> The AD review also indicated that we should move the reference to RFC
>>>> 5116
>>>> to an early section in the draft and that change is already included
>>>>in
>>>> the latest version on the CoRE WG Github.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Göran
>>>>
>>