IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] "CBOR Certificates"

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 12 February 2021 18:59 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 B532A3A0BC5 for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:59:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 9oWpBQVID6RA for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:59:06 -0800 (PST)
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 86AC03A0BBA for <cose@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C892938B85; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:02:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1ETjq5hS0lYF; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:02:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6241A38B75; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:02:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9B5320; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:59:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy?= <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, "cose@ietf.org" <cose@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B8DE7623-B2D2-48EE-A832-626058268EDB@ericsson.com>
References: <5C2A6065-AC5E-4702-A94D-F72C85BD6DAC@ericsson.com> <452ddae14b19ac8a6b98cdbbb20edede@bbhmail.nl> <4c5a7de2-e855-3bb7-cc6d-abfaa86c09dd@ri.se> <d197e8c500c7f1b284c74f3d25985df845d722c2.camel@aisec.fraunhofer.de> <2214.1613079564@localhost> <B8DE7623-B2D2-48EE-A832-626058268EDB@ericsson.com>
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: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:59:03 -0500
Message-ID: <26213.1613156343@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/yWHWiiZREceQZa-_zTH4syFnWZI>
Subject: Re: [COSE] "CBOR Certificates"
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: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 18:59:09 -0000

Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com> wrote:
    > We have struggled with naming. And as names have been updated, not all
    > text has followed.  The draft is defining a CBOR encoding of PKIX
    > certificates and two different ways of signing them. One which requires
    > re-encoding as ASN.1/DER and one which does not, each having advantages
    > and disadvantages. It seems to me that both variants have support in
    > the working group.

CBOR compressed (X509) Certificates
would be fine with me.

I believe that the second way of signing (CBOR artifacts) belongs in another document.

    > I think it makes sense to use the term "CBOR certificate" (shorthand
    > for "CBOR encoded X.509 certificate") as a common term for both

It is a hard no for me to call them CBOR certificates.
For the reason that Carsten gave: I want something completely divorced from
the X.509 legacy.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email