Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

Will take care of the sample after the final assignment of the algorithm identifier by IANA

 

From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:00 PM
To: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>; Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; cose <[e-mail]>; Ben Kaduk <[e-mail]>; Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03

 

Hi Russ!

 

This new text (and timing after the LC) works for me.  Thanks.

 

Roman

 

From: Russ Housley [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:33 PM
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Jim Schaad <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; cose <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Ben Kaduk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03

 

I have added this to the introduction to the Examples:

 

   This appendix provides a non-normative example ...

 

I will post it after resolving any other Last Call comments that come along.

 

Russ

 

 

On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

 

From: COSE [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:16 PM
To: Laurence Lundblade < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Cc: Roman Danyliw < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; Jim Schaad < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; cose < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; Ben Kaduk < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; Ivaylo Petrov < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03

 

Laurence:

 

I'll let Jim respond to the format question, but I think the reference to GitHub in informative,

 

[Roman] Irrespective of the Sign0 vs. 1 formatting.  This highlights a good point -- I don’t think the text explicitly says these examples are non-normative.  It probably should.

 

Roman

 

Russ

 





On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Laurence Lundblade < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> wrote:

 

Hi

 

Didn’t see any response to this. I also understand bette and can comment more clearly.

 

I really do think that s/COSE_Sign0/COSE_Sign1/ is necessary for the document to be correct.

 

I also think the Appendix A examples should be like the examples in RFC 8152 Appendix C. The examples should be just in CBOR diag, not in the JSON-format test framework input format. Is the reference to  <https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples> https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples in the Appendix considered normative?

 

LL

 

 





On Oct 10, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Laurence Lundblade < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> wrote:

 

Well I understand better — this is JSON formatted inputs / outputs for a test suite used by COSE-C?

 

But still…

 

What is a COSE_Sign0? Everywhere I look, I see it is a deprecated name for a COSE_SIgn1.

 

Shouldn’t the examples here look like the examples in RFC 8152? Should this use a new style for examples?

 

LL

 

 

On Oct 10, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Jim Schaad < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> wrote:

 

No that would be the format that I use in the examples with all of the inputs as well.  You should just use the cbor_diag field, and read section 8 of the CBOR draft for how multiple lies are done.

 

From: COSE < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> On Behalf Of Laurence Lundblade
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:05 PM
To: Russ Housley < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Cc: Roman D. Danyliw < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; Ivaylo Petrov < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; Ben Kaduk < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; cose < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-03

 

 

On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Russ Housley < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> wrote:

 

  This appendix provides an example of a COSE full message signature
  and an example of a COSE_Sign0 message.  The display format includes
  "\" to indicate that the same field continues on the next line, and it
  includes "|" to separate items within a field.

 

Doesn’t COSE only have a COSE_Sign1?  COSE_Sign0 is mentioned as wrong in errata.

 

The example in A.2 doesn’t look like a COSE_Sign1 at all.

 

LL

 

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

 

 

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose