IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] "CBOR Certificates"

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 13 February 2021 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E89533A0C00 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:48:26 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 il9wMGEhhL7Z for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93B93A0BFF for <cose@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44AAD38A61; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:51:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hxMIc196TNKM; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:51:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E62F38A56; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:51:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE91919; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:48:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "cose@ietf.org" <cose@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy?= <goran.selander@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <1AD29C3C-81EA-4306-BBBB-B914E934DEE8@ericsson.com>
References: <5C2A6065-AC5E-4702-A94D-F72C85BD6DAC@ericsson.com> <452ddae14b19ac8a6b98cdbbb20edede@bbhmail.nl> <4c5a7de2-e855-3bb7-cc6d-abfaa86c09dd@ri.se> <d197e8c500c7f1b284c74f3d25985df845d722c2.camel@aisec.fraunhofer.de> <2214.1613079564@localhost> <B8DE7623-B2D2-48EE-A832-626058268EDB@ericsson.com> <26213.1613156343@localhost> <0BEDAD6E-31F8-4FA2-9FCB-F85C642156D9@tzi.org> <2909.1613187738@localhost> <1AD29C3C-81EA-4306-BBBB-B914E934DEE8@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:48:18 -0500
Message-ID: <1417.1613245698@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/1jLudsvbPbmvcZ1WHynq4ZgP034>
Subject: Re: [COSE] "CBOR Certificates"
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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 19:48:27 -0000

John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com> wrote:
    > I think it is good to have a discussion regarding the name and
    > terminology.

    > I think “CBOR encoded X.509 Certificates” with some suitable
    > abbreviation would fit both type 0 and 1. Both use CBOR for encoding
    > and both follow RFC 5280 (X.509) except when it comes to DER
    > encoding. As long as the DER<->CBOR encoding is one-to-one it is easy
    > to see that the security of type 0 and type 1 are equal.

I can totally live with this.
(I still think we give the ITU X-cmte way too much credit)

    > I am not against changing the term “CBOR certificate” and saving that
    > for something else that has nothing with RFC 5280 to do, but I do not
    > understand the previous comment to move type 0 to another
    > document. Given a specification of type 1, type 0 follows trivially.

Good... "make it so"

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email