IETF Logo Mail Archive

[jose] Re: [COSE] Re: My review of draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Tue, 17 September 2024 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B2FC151547; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 07:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tEh0jWCGjoLM; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 07:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter3.welho.com (welho-filter3b.welho.com [83.102.41.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6F23C14F6EE; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5ACA10F8D; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:13:29 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp3.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.86]) by localhost (welho-filter3.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1M_veXsOE8fo; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:13:29 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII2 (87-92-153-79.rev.dnainternet.fi [87.92.153.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 893B82309; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:13:27 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:13:27 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: cose@ietf.org, jose@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ZumOh7WKcCaiZQY2@LK-Perkele-VII2.locald>
References: <008001db074b$57585530$0608ff90$@gmx.net> <GVXPR07MB96785F126A91D0AEA777F36689672@GVXPR07MB9678.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <004601db081e$527238a0$f756a9e0$@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <004601db081e$527238a0$f756a9e0$@gmx.net>
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Message-ID-Hash: ZN72IC3Z5U6ABLVXUCUN5MN246WP32TZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZN72IC3Z5U6ABLVXUCUN5MN246WP32TZ
X-MailFrom: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-jose.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [jose] Re: [COSE] Re: My review of draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/6FYn6lOa1WuyO3DbJHCgTGzVOsg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jose>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:jose-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:jose-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:jose-leave@ietf.org>

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:53:45AM +0200, hannes.tschofenig=40gmx.net@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
 
 
> How about „fully specified“ and “a la carte” as the two categories?

Consider COSE alg that invokes a KEM encaps/decaps on key, then uses
KMAC256 as KDF followed by encryption using AES256-GCM. 

That algorithm does not seem like "a la carte". However, it is
definitely not "fully specified" as defined by the draft (and thus is
"polymorphic").


Conversely, in COSE combining multiple "fully specified" algorithms
can get pretty close to "a la carte" territory.




-Ilari

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status