Re: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-06: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 12 July 2020 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 DFE523A0809; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 zZ-EjXh9mGpz; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 18:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA94F3A0805; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 18:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 06C1kVaq020577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 11 Jul 2020 21:46:34 -0400
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 18:46:31 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io>, Cose Chairs Wg <cose-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200712014631.GQ16335@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <159442956559.24063.13675507837676989872@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwZrThve2BufO1S-4qVS5eyL1W3r_J_FSm-z3j=YnPfZyA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZrThve2BufO1S-4qVS5eyL1W3r_J_FSm-z3j=YnPfZyA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/OX9bh7yCM5vjONEyDLQTHuD_raU>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-06: (with COMMENT)
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: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:46:40 -0000

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 06:36:57PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:06 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-06: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for the past and pending updates to address my Discuss point.
> > A few new comments on the -06:
> > [...]
> >
> 
> I take "pending" to mean I should expect an -07 before approving this?
> 
> Assuming "yes", I'm going to mark it as "Revised I-D Needed" now, but
> please tell me if I'm misunderstanding.

Your understanding is correct.

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/KvoH-c1DXhfL_Jg_qxuY_IeTSL8/
and my comment on section 3.3 (we still have text that claims that a
shorter SHAKE output is not a prefix of a longer SHAKE output, which is
false).

-Ben