Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-05
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 20:02 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBA512097C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:02:05 -0800 (PST)
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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 oJGYWPpQ8OBP for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A8D112098E for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070BC300B23 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:01:45 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZNrFevPfiYBg for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:01:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-198-163.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.198.163]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54403300460; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:01:42 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <157230544744.16080.11317427545621451267@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 15:01:42 -0500
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig.all@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <351AF9D0-8D01-40F0-A861-AF6ED825C439@vigilsec.com>
References: <157230544744.16080.11317427545621451267@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Z4JW-ZM4mIqD1EWyKCx_tnvd75k>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 20:02:06 -0000
Elwyn: Thanks for the review. I missed the review when you posted it, but I saw Alissa's recent reply to it. > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-05 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2019-10-28 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-29 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <" dir="auto">https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;. > > Document: draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-05 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2019/10/28 > IETF LC End Date: 2019/10/29 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) N/A > > Summary: > Almost ready, There is one minor issue (barely above editorial) and a number > of nits. I haven't checked the details of the HSS/LMS summary derived from RFC > 8554 and I am taking the contents of the Appendix on trust! > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > s1.1, last para: I found the note which provides particular motivation for > this proposal rather obscure on first reading. After thinking about it, I now > understand why this is here, but another sentence or so reinforcing the idea > that getting the software distribution system post-quantum secure at the > earlest opportunity is key to avoiding melt down should quantum computing > develop more quickly than we might expect. Also referring to the SUIT WG is > not future proof. I hope this resolved your concern: Since the HSS/LMS signature algorithm does not depend on the difficulty of discrete logarithm or factoring, the HSS/LMS signature algorithm is considered to be post-quantum secure. The use of HSS/ LMS hash-based signatures to protect software update distribution will allow the deployment of future software that implements new cryptosystems. By deploying HSS/LMS today, authentication and integrity protection of the future software can be provided, even if advances break current digital signature mechanisms. > Nits/editorial comments: > s1, HASHSIG reference anchor: I would be inclined to stick with the 'standard' > anchor for RFC 8554 i.e. [RFC8554]. I guess this is taste. I find [HASHSIG] easier to read in many of the places where RFC 8554 is referenced. > s1, para 2: Expand DSA, ECDSA and EdDSA on first use ( RSA is claimed to be > well-known). Arguably references for the various mechanisms might be desirable. All of these are well known digital signature algorithms. They only appear as part of the motivation section; however, I will add references. > s2, last para: s/The the/The/ Good catch. Thanks for the careful read. Corrected. > s2 and subsections: The terminology and symbology used (e.g, || for > concatenation) are (I believe) those defined in RFC 8554. This should be > mentioned. At the first use, I added: where, the notation comes from [HASHSIG]. > s2.2, para 1: 'This specification supports only SHA-256': I think this is a > cut-and-paste from RFC 8554. Suggest: s/This specification supports/[RFC8554] > initially only supports/ and add at the end 'This specification would > automatically support any such additional hash functions.' I suggest: The [HASHSIG] specification supports only SHA-256, with m=32. An IANA registry is defined so that other hash functions could be used in the future. > s4/s4.1: Rather than leaving an empty s4 and having a single subsection > (generally frowned upon), the phraseology used at the start of s17 of RFC 8152 > would be an improvement. Agreed. That is an improvement. > s4: The security considerations of RFCs 8152 and 8554 are also relevant to > implementations of this specification. Agreed. I added a paragraph. > s6: References to the relevant IANA registries for 'COSE Algrithms' and 'COSE > Key Types' should be added. Agreed. I added a reference to the IANA Registry page. Russ
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-c… Elwyn Davies via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Russ Housley