Re: [COSE] Adoption of RSA and alternative algorithms

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Thu, 11 August 2016 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.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 BB90612D82C for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.com
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 DNqNtc-P2pI9 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0106.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8666112D605 for <cose@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=iraWVOlBR3i96V7J58fsVGlVhB+RRZ4a4bWJGsvduoE=; b=ccDZOboyfMkBEI2pehSZLTpEdJVIZqDHf3YJauDmeULz1053eAMxd+WZSp3bg3mhdUFhPjW4IWeTf1lgMqGuXnRY5mJPtCFd8u8T+6BNGLPny6IQKei/EuYTI/dAqK8YlHsBIPyyP3kp2MKmyBcIHaTANl1zpdelRHOXrw+Smx0=
Received: from DM5PR03MB2441.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.233.11) by DM5PR03MB2444.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.233.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.549.15; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 22:31:58 +0000
Received: from DM5PR03MB2441.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.233.11]) by DM5PR03MB2441.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.233.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0549.026; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 22:31:58 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: "cose@ietf.org" <cose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [COSE] Adoption of RSA and alternative algorithms
Thread-Index: AQHR6aIjR4RjK35FXkWLzfd8NdrKSKBEA1dAgABo97A=
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 22:31:58 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB2441E74275577721C0115CE8A61E0@DM5PR03MB2441.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D2BD06DF-12B1-4C65-AD76-6E43ACCE19C3@mit.edu> <SN1PR0301MB164576F0CEA026938F0EA202F51E0@SN1PR0301MB1645.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN1PR0301MB164576F0CEA026938F0EA202F51E0@SN1PR0301MB1645.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=tonynad@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:e::768]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ddcb271c-79dd-4cab-b445-08d3c2374e92
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR03MB2444; 6:NpYWeByItY+VoHo2OtweGHLr7AA6NxgEAF6QFQ1W/qTFOYGK8zwQ/iE8Y+xbO6Yt40Dh09kmMSRP/yTlXy/EaspRx23FritA3v75+EopTOd+jTifLWtzr2T9bm6fKMOBhx+AwX4KI8R3KcSWkig08ot83+DrArzEseRUMKn8pHS+p1xVD5sIBOoUCC9wdSTfzdTXr4fkauqTo40MqHrR7Otm3h4Yh6M1mNg40CXz8zcG5ZVI0rugUJuENhpY2IEV8B1APdYYzhAAWob4+49YQ1AQmJrzXG6AWbwcnk3r9bMf204YZ9+afHOk+5sho53GTB/kAnwvjULgHYLSplFlhw==; 5:tARC6EDxRqTZSYS8REdvp35mpJhQymS+1E1XnOKWG5+XQo1qozlV71aEiwZfIsWRsTJHeEaInh7NcL2PKpmTLj7YdI0V6rGYz2mjKPybzTpVxR2bwoYpExHO780IfBhiA8+jGMMN2uFugopo+xkGhg==; 24:zFWPLGBCVaX95WV3NIVYVgtooYAbs6ljwCaeH9qsLLOGoBSdFe+CZmukGa5fxEcEV0oXUK7YR2bRNL+5b8JuPloGeCBO+SAReknjNr0FfeA=; 7:rmhhEM/r7ZNNPo+sb91WTNvAqxZirZNTI5Ru+RSUV0D717a15LdityPBeLvopcQV94OCvbZKWn9QXcOeMHiayFEn/oMQFab4T+YvQw9wxdGEuxqzneucbey6ZCca9uLdGW/hSbPkL6ufgIQZ3ybETuqPyZMctMZnSeqn8Nbo7JCTCMi8t4iSXzBu96dV5gWisNQKyJgI0dDXGh51IZbfnl3na+eHSa6fx2JjTIkvkJFcF5tmvTxAVlkk4cxvhI7F
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM5PR03MB2444;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR03MB2444A09DA3A4EFABF082F676A61E0@DM5PR03MB2444.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:DM5PR03MB2444; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR03MB2444;
x-forefront-prvs: 0031A0FFAF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(377454003)(189002)(199003)(53754006)(19609705001)(19625215002)(87936001)(5002640100001)(54356999)(16236675004)(33656002)(5005710100001)(189998001)(76176999)(10090500001)(76576001)(7696003)(8990500004)(10290500002)(10400500002)(7906003)(50986999)(86362001)(2900100001)(110136002)(11100500001)(107886002)(450100001)(97736004)(7736002)(101416001)(86612001)(2950100001)(790700001)(8676002)(102836003)(6116002)(5640700001)(106116001)(2501003)(3660700001)(106356001)(8936002)(15975445007)(122556002)(81156014)(1730700003)(5630700001)(3280700002)(19617315012)(2351001)(77096005)(586003)(9686002)(68736007)(81166006)(99286002)(19300405004)(105586002)(19580405001)(92566002)(19580395003)(2906002)(74316002)(7846002)(3826002)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR03MB2444; H:DM5PR03MB2441.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR03MB2441E74275577721C0115CE8A61E0DM5PR03MB2441namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Aug 2016 22:31:58.5327 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR03MB2444
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/giwK89gcQr40VAvgMgydUfpnor8>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Adoption of RSA and alternative algorithms
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 11 Aug 2016 22:32:02 -0000

Here are my choices

1.      A

2.      A

3.      B
From: COSE [mailto:cose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:04 AM
To: cose <cose@ietf.org<mailto:cose@ietf.org>>
Subject: [COSE] Adoption of RSA and alternative algorithms

Hi all, hope that everyone is recovering from Berlin. As discussed in the meeting last week, the working group is considering additional work on RSA and other algorithms in the COSE messages framework. These would be published in a document separate from the core draft that is now on its journey to RFC-land.

The chairs would like to gauge the sentiment of the working group on a number of items related to this proposed work. Please respond with your answers to the list.


1) Do you think it’s necessary or worthwhile to define RSA and other additional algorithms in the COSE messages framework?

A) Yes, we should do an RSA/other-algs document
B) No, we shouldn’t do an RSA/other-algs document
C) Yes, but not right now
D) I need more information (please ask what you want to know)
E) I don’t give a flying rat whether this gets done or not



2) If the work is adopted, where should it be done?

A) Here in COSE (we’ll keep the group open for this item)
B) In other working group (please specify where; note that ACE is a possible option)
C) I need more information (ask what you want to know)
D) I don’t give a flying rat where this happens



3) If the work is adopted, which draft is a good starting point?

A) Jim’s draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schaad-cose-alg-01
B) Mike’s draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-rsa-00
C) Some other draft (please tell us which one it is or offer to write it yourself)
D) I need more information (ask what you want to know)
E) I don’t give a flying rat which document we start with




We’re going to keep this thread open for two weeks at the AD’s request, and the chairs will try to make a consensus call at the end of that time period.

Thank you,

 — Justin & Kepeng, your COSE chairs



        \.  -   -  .

       '          _ , -`.

     '        _,'     _,'

    '      ,-'      _/

   '    ,-' \     _/

  '   ,'     \  _'

  '  '       _\'

  ' ,    _,-'  \     _________

  \,_,--'       \    \\_______\<smb://_______/>

                 \    \\+=+=+=+\<smb://+=+=+=+/>

                  \    \\=+=+=+=\<smb://=+=+=+=/>

                   \    \\+=+=+=+\<smb://+=+=+=+/>

                    \    \\=+=+=+=\________

                     \    \\+=+=+=+____----))

                      \    \`---------.)))\\

                       \   ||+=+=+=+=+=\\ /\\

                        \  ||___________\\/ \\

                         \ ||------------\\

  ejm                     \||             \\