[COSE] early allocation for x5bag

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 05 July 2021 18:17 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 60D643A0A8D; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Q8Zy-teSGX84; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8295D3A0A73; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954D238A0A; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dVK6DG7l5ozX; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:19:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76BA38A86; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F5A454; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:16:58 -0400
Message-ID: <29307.1625509018@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/NYxGkFFpXeCc9moWwbDbk-QDGyI>
Subject: [COSE] early allocation for x5bag
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 18:17:12 -0000

Hi, in draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher, we are recommending use of x5bag
to contain the chain of certificates that this constrained version of BRSKI
(RFC8995) needs.  This is used in the request direction as per RFC8995
section 5.5.2, and in the return (RFC8366) voucher to provide any chain
that the pledge might need to validate the signature on the voucher.

We are planning to do interop at the hackathon, and implementors noticed that
we don't have a key value in draft-ietf-cose-x509.  This would be TBD4 in
Table 1.   Oops!

Can we ask the WG chairs to do an early allocation for these values?
(Or at least x5bag).  This is IANA Considerations section 4.1:

4.1.  COSE Header Parameter Registry

   IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header parameters in
   Table 1 in the "COSE Header Parameters" registry.  The "Value
   Registry" field is empty for all of the items.  For each item, the
   'Reference' field points to this document.

{i wish we would always put the URL of the Registry, because sometimes thing
are too similiarly named.  It is, I think:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#header-parameters }

If we can't get a value allocated in time, I guess we could squat on the string 'x5bag' for now.
Code should plan to accept 'x5bag' and the new value until the end of the
summer, as we aren't sure if/when we'll get the allocation done.

I have written this into the interop planning document at:
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T8Rtfk1zia_p05_6eb_WQA2Mmid-eP1-cAgnwdpF9Xk/edit?usp=sharing

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