Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06

Yes, thanks Linda for the review.

I put a Discuss ballot on for a couple fairly mundane/organizational
questions, and requesting that some more of the security risks of the
secp256k1 curve (that had been discussed in emails much earlier) made it
into the document itself.

-Ben

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 02:11:06PM +0000, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi Linda, thank you for this review.  
> 
> Hi Mike, thank you for incorporating the feedback in -07.
> 
> I entered a No Objection ballot.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: COSE <cose-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:49 PM
> > To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>; Matthew A. Miller
> > <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>; secdir@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org;
> > cose@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [COSE] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-
> > algorithms-06
> > 
> > Mike,
> > 
> > Thank you for the change.
> > 
> > Linda
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:52 AM
> > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; Matthew A. Miller
> > <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>; secdir@ietf.org
> > Cc: cose@ietf.org; draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms.all@ietf.org; last-
> > call@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06
> > 
> > Thanks again for your review, Linda.
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ie
> > tf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-07%23section-
> > 5.2&amp;data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4025d38884a
> > e4d1a9a5b08d807de6562%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C
> > 1%7C637267999048635328&amp;sdata=oGsafk80fAFxgfMfx3wUPwlrVexjGyV
> > vsHDZfrKdpyo%3D&amp;reserved=0 adds the requested clarification that SHA-
> > 256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 are the SHA-2 hash functions.
> > 
> > 				-- Mike
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:22 PM
> > To: Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>; secdir@ietf.org
> > Cc: cose@ietf.org; draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms.all@ietf.org; last-
> > call@ietf.org
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-
> > algorithms-06
> > 
> > Matthew,
> > 
> > That is what I was thinking. Can you add a sentence in Section 5.2 to say that
> > this is for the collection of SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 algorithms?
> > Otherwise, the two sections of the document don't  match.
> > 
> > Thank you
> > Linda Dunbar
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:55 PM
> > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; secdir@ietf.org
> > Cc: cose@ietf.org; draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms.all@ietf.org; last-
> > call@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06
> > 
> > Hello Linda,
> > 
> > Thanks for the review.  Speaking on the author's behalf, SHA-2 is defined as the
> > collection of hash algorithms, including all of those cited (SHA-256, SHA-384,
> > SHA-512).  Do you believe it is critical to call this out explicitly?
> > 
> > 
> > - m&m
> > 
> > Matthew A. Miller
> > On 20/05/26 17:51, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker wrote:
> > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> > > Review result: Not Ready
> > >
> > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> > > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> > > IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
> > area directors.
> > >  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like
> > > any other  last call comments.
> > >
> > > This document is to list down the COSE&JOSE Algorithms to be
> > > registered to IANA. But it seems the description is not complete. In
> > > the Section 2: among the
> > > 4 algorithms listed under RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5, three are NOT
> > > recommended, one is deprecated. Under the Security Consideration
> > > (Section 5), Section 5.2 describes why SHA-2 is "Not Recommended",
> > > Section 5.3 describes why SHA-1 is "Deprecated".  What about the
> > > description on why SHA-512,  SHA-384, and SHA-256 are not recommended?
> > Is the missing description intended?
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Linda Dunbar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > COSE mailing list
> > COSE@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose