Re: [Lake] COSE IANA registrations in EDHOC (Was: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-09.txt)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 24 August 2021 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4FC3A1205; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 01:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 eLPngu8jHJ6x; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A120E3A120B; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 01:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dc8d5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.200.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Gv1qV3lzBz2xMf; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:04:54 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <F24FD33B-B94D-4C84-AE07-C9161668C16E@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:04:54 +0200
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>, "cose@ietf.org" <cose@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 651485093.932134-fbcf59e2806a7dad65bb3ef6bd8cfe21
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5080F76-EE94-47A7-AEF7-864C7644BE8F@tzi.org>
References: <F24FD33B-B94D-4C84-AE07-C9161668C16E@ericsson.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran_Selander?= <goran.selander=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/WQpvcOpUyWJXEepv-26L5tbq5AY>
Subject: Re: [Lake] COSE IANA registrations in EDHOC (Was: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-09.txt)
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:05:06 -0000

I see.

So, you are saying, this will be a “using EDHOC in COSE” specification, still normative, but referenced from EDHOC as informative as EDHOC works without COSE.

Yes, it is always hard to position a “using X in Y” draft between the X and Y working groups — after all, the two ends of this draft need to fit X and Y, respectively.  If the EDHOC specification truly doesn’t need the contents of this specification, then I can see moving them into a COSE document.  But I think it is as expedient to keep them together in one document.  The only strong reason to split the document would be to avoid a long wait while COSE is deciding on some controversial content of the extracted spec.  Do we foresee such a delay?

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2021-08-24, at 09:35, Göran Selander <goran.selander=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Combining the responses from Carsten and Michael, and including COSE.
> 
>> On 2021-08-23, 19:17, "Michael Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>   Göran Selander wrote:
>>> * The key identifier ‘kid’ is extended to also support CBOR ints,
>>> making ‘kid2’ introduced in -08 redundant. This change was based on
>>> feedback from the COSE WG [1]. One potential next step is to move all
>>> COSE-related IANA registrations from this draft to a separate COSE
>>> draft and make an informative reference.
>> 
>>> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/qGngdte4s3SEZEKM-xBEoXYUgKc/
>> 
>>   I understanding splitting the document so that it is easier to update,
>>   but I think that the reference should be normative.
>> 
>>   I think we want to publish the documents together.
> 
> 
> > On 2021-08-23, 21:42, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> One potential next step is to move all COSE-related IANA registrations from this draft
>> to a separate COSE draft and make an informative reference.
>> 
>>   Why?
>> 
> 
> 
> The registrations in question are in section 8.5 -  8.7 of draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-09: The extension of 'kid' to int (both as a reference and in the referenced object) and the registration of 'cwt' to signify that the value is a CWT or UCCS.
> 
> A few reasons have been mentioned for moving this from EDHOC to a COSE draft, I don't know what is most relevant, if anything:
> 
> * In case of 'kid', these registrations would make EDHOC an update of draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct (RFC-to-be 9052). I don't know if LAKE or COSE wants that. 
> 
> * These registrations are independent of the base EDHOC protocol, but enables the use of CWT and UCCS as credentials, and more compact identification of credentials. Therefore they could instead be referenced from EDHOC. I don't see why the reference needs to be normative.
> 
> * These registrations belong to the COSE domain and may gain better awareness and reviews if put into a COSE draft.
> 
> 
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lake mailing list
> Lake@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake