IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] draft-prorock-cose-post-quantum-signatures [Was: Re: Call for COSE Agenda Items for IETF 113 in Vienna]

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 09 March 2022 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 AEE7A3A1153 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:56:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aDeNk53vq99z for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (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 DEB313A1156 for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D1C1469F2; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 17:55:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6F76146EAF; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 17:55:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <41420855-B73D-4E1E-8908-6162773F7335@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9FA392F2-989D-4BE9-BE55-DAEF1E5E9771"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 17:55:56 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAGJKSNSuvmTWBkFPk-at3bZn57Y_VH6CoNx3VEwbQx37MeL8SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, Orie <orie@transmute.industries>, cose@ietf.org
To: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
References: <CAGJKSNSzuw7i2BXAw6DPQjTN7ujZiKPvU+o+N-agTLrSeRCUCw@mail.gmail.com> <YieQ4g30tZAK0uRL@LK-Perkele-VII2.locald> <4b0c9e4a-c4b7-80b6-382e-1a76311cc543@gmail.com> <CAGJKSNSuvmTWBkFPk-at3bZn57Y_VH6CoNx3VEwbQx37MeL8SQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/0DZvKgr5nR6PQEz3z9yFJSGrPgg>
Subject: Re: [COSE] draft-prorock-cose-post-quantum-signatures [Was: Re: Call for COSE Agenda Items for IETF 113 in Vienna]
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption <cose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cose/>
List-Post: <mailto:cose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 22:56:03 -0000


> On Mar 8, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:
> 
> I believe most people (in retrospect) have rather come to the conclusion that polymorphic algorithms were a mistake.
> 
> +1 - that seems to be something that folks are finding out 
> 
> Where the actual "kty" shakes out as we continue to improve the draft is yet to be seen.  "PQK" made sense at the time as this is dealing with post quantum keys and signatures - just as easily we could be looking at two key types, probably by family - e.g. one for lattice based, and one for hash based signatures, or could just as easily be "OKP" - we opened an issue to track that here: 
> https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures/issues/48 <https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures/issues/48> 
> and will discuss on our next call.
> 
> This is exactly why we wanted the broader input from the COSE WG

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8778.txt

Is there any reason to do things differently for other hash-based signatures?

Russ

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email