Re: [Sidrops] Signed Object signed with Ed25519 (RFC 8419 proof-of-concept)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> Job wrote:
> >
> > Which RFC specifies the parameters to use with ECDSA in CMS?
> 
> I think you are looking for RFC 5753.

Thanks!

Am I correct to interpret RFC 5753 to mean that secp256r1 (aka X9.62
prime256v1, aka NIST P-256) is recommended over secp256k1 for use in CMS?
I see no mention of secp256k1 in RFC 5753.

For comparison I generated a secp256r1 variant of the same ASPA object,
it clocks in as the second smallest:

RSA EE w/ RSA CA:              1701 bytes [1]
secp256k1 w/ sha256 w/ RSA CA: 1463 bytes [3]
secp256r1 w/ sha256 w/ RSA CA: 1284 bytes (attached)
Ed25519 w/ sha512 w/ RSA CA:   1281 bytes [2]

The 179 byte difference between secp256k1 and secp256r1 is caused by the
secp256k1 public key being encoded differently. The secp256k1 public key
is encoded in 'explicit form', this means that in addition to the 64
byte public key, also a large prime, A & B fields, an uncompressed
Generator field, and an Order field are encoded.

Kind regards,

Job

[1]: https://console.rpki-client.org/chloe.sobornost.net/rpki/RIPE-nljobsnijders/5m80fwYws_3FiFD7JiQjAqZ1RYQ.asa.html
[2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/CG2BWxOa6Ly8F0huOULIBd4hGEc/
[3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/5IpqPtnJlhVr2BztFxuNnV6xNck/