IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Thu, 10 March 2022 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 8AD3E3A09FA for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:30:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.186, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 REBhVvJj7Flt for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from welho-filter1.welho.com (welho-filter1b.welho.com [83.102.41.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C46F13A09EF for <cose@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75161F19B for <cose@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:30:15 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp3.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.86]) by localhost (welho-filter1.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.23]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HdBR9C1e4Xyc for <cose@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:30:14 +0200 (EET)
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII2 (87-92-216-160.rev.dnainternet.fi [87.92.216.160]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E8F62315 for <cose@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:30:13 +0200 (EET)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:30:13 +0200
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: cose@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Yima9Whok1Z9ZvAd@LK-Perkele-VII2.locald>
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> <41420855-B73D-4E1E-8908-6162773F7335@vigilsec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41420855-B73D-4E1E-8908-6162773F7335@vigilsec.com>
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/GXNB3oMcVHMzNfkpIV7vq8kyBiw>
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 06:30:24 -0000

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 05:55:56PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Mar 8, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:
> > 
> > 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?

IMO, Yes, there is a reason: HSS/LMS are stateful (note that there is
no defined private key format in that RFC), while SPHINCS+ is stateless
(with byte string public and private keys, and a closed set of small
number of variants, which makes it map cleanly into OKP).


-Ilari

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email