[COSE] Review of draft-ietf-cose-x509-05

Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io> Wed, 08 January 2020 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ivaylo@ackl.io>
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 97A4012006B for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 01:50:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 Y6b1LHErhdbv for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 01:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 1BF1D120024 for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 01:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id 20so1758839wmj.4 for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 01:50:04 -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:cc; bh=8NE9+1K9v+Y+ZCBHlX4PubNRP810QzZJl1pqenL3hoA=; b=g2LD+p50oKXVkO8SvnfGJuHNvDl8S8ETEEItP5G8u2wzIR6MvyJvwDhHwE/sXpsGxg hj3wvk7leFDs2aZhlDffDxwikTl7h0F9TdCKtFn8rHRkBfOdRwQwKj0+myUizPMSi57k /89Q2729U/WMpSm240TCVZtjIsTYAIhLo4qimHpx0OTNyXD6ciryHmjX/2hqmwEZ/8ZY LDP6i6BM1YtBcX117Vb4YcVsV+OSDIjRJS6/vgcS/1jDSGIMuR2CV2r8DvQj/d+DwWFk aFf2R6Vhin+xP4xSXYpDfvbVTWDjFaOOf0dc7/h3H3uumnVVoFboRX6rYkhkyDY+fKXR keBQ==
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:cc; bh=8NE9+1K9v+Y+ZCBHlX4PubNRP810QzZJl1pqenL3hoA=; b=tFklGOVq5vJDsmJTG7mNFBuwr2Fp9zfqAUYAwd9UeCndb/P9IOrxeW+UmCOdTtn8An wlB6hpHCeWe7YV8AwpTYCrmSQk7oUpZm5+9jYEs+aWO+AWWgFrYqf1KMmcxvk2Bk7ZoS pNRpTxy87oSW+GOR9BINJ5pNjhfCKODqm1ZrAWRouktNgR5eHKmMm/CVzxgRMy5byZ0H fxGRzTvLZ/PAY+XtEE+/Vjo45ZmJHAzbaExILg3mTTXcAowAVG+JXJ7vegeWYFjX9knp ESpSAaDyDkHM3ckPaDsO/fqAnryfOJW0Ty8UqEF4xzHvQl9UYAkFFbgioa9LsxT4WYt/ y1kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9qCCF6J4p6f6gj7QsJLboGfY1dFFHHnb7XYGN2+p79rqcDokT Z7pZelqF/pPsJUdXXtB49neHQz7wf5mZvVFzm51hwQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw6xpIECajXrDklvbJHZiJtwLJuRoTc7/uy385TIxXZmXDrc7OJ9UiFZ8fKGHjmsG+Xv3/pDoEUmi3dS+VOxKI=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb0d:: with SMTP id u13mr2948665wmj.68.1578477002467; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 01:50:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:49:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJFkdRwQPNfdGe5u4+4cavXyntsvhUg6QzTTSuFMudwCvcN8vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-cose-x509@ietf.org
Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004e29f059b9dd10e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/6G8CWIm6rIpEOgLBw0xQz88iBzE>
Subject: [COSE] Review of draft-ietf-cose-x509-05
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, 08 Jan 2020 09:50:07 -0000

[ Posting as an individual ]

Dear all,

This is my review of draft-ietf-cose-x509. Overall I believe the document
is nearly ready with a few nits and phrasings that can be improved as well
as one place where additional details could be beneficial in my opinion.

== Possibly more information could be beneficial

Section 2:
* I think some more information can be added to this sentence:
    As this header attribute implies a trust relationship, the

    attribute MUST be in the protected attributes.

== Nits:

Section 1:
* s/discussions where held/discussions were held/
    In the process of writing [RFC8152] discussions where held on the

    question of X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and if there was a needed to

    provide for them.

* Improve readability

    Since that time a number of cases where X.509

certificate support is necessary have been defined.

  - to be replaced by

    Since that time a number of cases have been defined where X.509

certificate support is necessary.

* Disambiguate situations

     Some of the constrained device situations are being used where an

    X.509 PKI is already installed.
  - to be replaced by
     Constrained devices are being used in some situations where an X.509
      PKI is already installed.

* I believe it is understandable, but for me "well understood" could be
misunderstood:

The use of certificates in this scenario allows for key management to be
used

   which is well understood.

- A possible alternative is:

    In this situation the use of certificates allows for key management
using those certificates, the properties of which are well understood.


Section 2:

* s/distributer/distributor/

  This validation can be done via the PKIX rules in

   [RFC5280] or by using a different trust structure, such as a trusted
   certificate distributoer for self-signed certificates.

* s/establish a trust/establish trust/

  If the application cannot establish

   a trust in the certificate, then it cannot be used.
* s/validation the/validation of the/

COSE_Signature and COSE_Sign0 objects, in these objects they

     identify the certificate to be used for validation of the signature.


Section 5:
* s/certificate validation/certificate validity/
    In any event, both the signature and certificate validity
     MUST be checked before acting on any requests.

Best regards,
Ivaylo