Re: [COSE] Recharter the COSE working group.

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

I support this recharter activity.  The SUIT WG does not want to specify the use of hash-based signature algorithms with COSE because they have much greater applicability than just signing software packages.  I did write a draft <draft-housley-suit-cose-hash-sig-04> that could be used as a starting point for this portion of the work.

Russ


> On Aug 11, 2018, at 5:03 PM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I have approached the Security ADs about progressing the COSE from Proposed
> Standard to Full Standard.  They have indicated that they would be open to
> this.  In addition to this, there are a couple of other documents related to
> COSE which are looking for homes and this would provide an opportunity for
> them to be dealt with as well.
> 
> The charter text that I have proposed is:
> 
> *********************************
> 
> CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE, RFC 8152) describes how to create
> and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption use
> Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) for serialization.
> COSE additionally describes a representation for cryptographic keys.
> 
> COSE has been picked up and is being used both by a number of groups within
> the IETF (i.e. ACE, CORE, ANAMA, 6TiSCH and SUIT) as well as outside of the
> IETF (i.e. W3C and FIDO).  There are a number of implementations, both open
> source and private,  now in existence.  The specification is now
> sufficiently mature that it makes sense to try and advance it to STD status.
> 
> The standards progression work will focus on:
> 1. Should the document be split in two?  One document for the structures and
> one document for the algorithm definitions.
> 2.  What areas in the document need clarification before the document can be
> progressed?
> 3.  What implementations exist and do they cover all of the major sections
> of the document?
> 
> There are a small number of COSE related documents that will also be
> addressed by the working group dealing with additional attributes and
> algorithms that need to be reviewed and published.  The first set of three
> are listed in the deliverables.  A re-charter will be required to expand
> this list.
> 
> The SUIT working group has identified a need for the use of hash base
> signatures in the form of Leighton-Micali Signatures (LMS)
> (draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs).  This signature form is resistant to quantum
> computing and is low-cost for validation.
> 
> The W3C Web Authentication working group has identified a need for the
> ability to use algorithms which are currently part of TPMs which are widely
> deployed.  Many of the algorithms for this work are not expected to be IETF
> recommended algorithms.
> 
> At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates
> was not a feature that needed to be transferred from the JOSE key document
> (RFC 7517).  Since that time a better sense of how certificates would be
> used both in the IoT sphere and with COSE outside of the IoT sphere has been
> developed.  The need to be able to identify X.509 certificates is now a
> feature that needs to be provided.
> 
> Key management and binding of keys to identities are out of scope for the
> working group. 
> The COSE WG will not innovate in terms of cryptography. 
> The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to those in RFCs or
> active IETF WG documents.
> 
> The working group will coordinate its progress with the ACE, SUIT and CORE
> working groups to ensure that we are fulfilling the needs of these
> constituencies to the extent relevant to their work. 
> Other groups may be added to this list as the set of use cases is expanded.
> 
> The WG will have four deliverables:
> 
> 1. Republishing a version of RFC 8152 suitable for advancement to full
> standard.
> 2. Use of Hash-based Signature algorithms in COSE using
> draft-housley-suit-cose-hash-sig as a starting point.
> 3. Placement of X.509 certificates in COSE messages and keys using
> draft-schaad-cose-x509 as a starting point.
> 4. Define the algorithms needed for W3C Web Authentication for COSE using
> draft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms and draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a
> starting point.
> 
> ******************************
> 
> I don't currently have a set of milestones associated with this charter in
> part because I have not talked to everybody about what they believe they can
> do.
> 
> For RFC 8152, assuming that the document is split into two pieces, I would
> expect that we should be able to get the split documents to the IESG prior
> to the Prague meeting.  Assuming that the IESG requires that we wait an
> additional six months of the new document I would expect that roughly nine
> months later an updated document could go to the IESG for full standard.
> 
> The hash-based signature algorithm document is probably in good shape, the
> big question would be should it be coordinated with the similar documents in
> the LAMPS working group.  If that is not needed then this should take less
> than a year to finish.
> 
> The X.509 certificates draft needs to get review, but I believe that it is
> good shape now and probably ready to go.
> 
> I don't know what the state is for the two Web Authentication drafts as I
> have not read the first in a while and have never read the second. 
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose